I
RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN
Housing Experience and Well-Being of Asylum Seekers
A COMPARATIVE ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF REFUGEES, LIVING IN
DIFFERENT TYPES OF REFUGEE ACCOMMODATIONS IN A GERMAN
MUNICIPALITY
Master Thesis Human Geography
III
A COMPARATIVE ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF REFUGEES, LIVING IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF REFUGEE ACCOMMODATIONS IN A GERMAN MUNICIPALITY
Dana Ringel
Student number s4103726 Dana.ringel@student.ru.nl
Master Thesis Human Geography
Master Conflicts, Territories & Identities Nijmegen School of Management
Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Thesis Supervisor
Drs. Lieneke de Visser
January 2017
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prior to concluding four years of academic training in the field of Human Geography, with a specialization in Conflict Studies, Germany was struck by a wave of migrants and refugees, unprecedented since the Second World War, especially from Syria. The happenings gave rise to heated public and political debates and to dubious movements that called for the closing of borders to safeguard “German values” and security. I was baffled by the subtle spillover of this sentiment to my personal environment, where I witnessed an increase in negative attitudes and feelings towards the newcomers. Therefore it was a personal matter to me to put myself in the shoes of those human beings, who fled their countries and came to live among us, in order to enable an understanding of the issue from an alternative perspective.The thesis, that I am proud to present to the reader now, is therefore meant to make a levelheaded contribution to considerations that focus on an improvement of the dealings with refugees right from the very start. I understand it as my part to welcome them in Germany, the place where they may hope to find a new home. Finding a home begins with their housing situation. The aim of this research was therefore set to assess refugees´ housing experiences in Germany, to derive recommendations on how to aid a successful resettlement process. Before the reader starts to read this thesis, I would like to thank the various people, without whom it would not have come into existence.
First, I would like to thank my thesis supervisors, Lotje de Vries for her guidance during the development of this research and her trust in my skills and Lieneke de Visser for the freedom to give it my personal note. I am very grateful for the counseling time she donated and her valuable remarks that motivated me to keep on track and helped me to better think through certain aspects.
My special thanks goes to my internship supervisor Peter Botzian, the head of the division “Migration and Integration” of the Caritas Organization for the Archdiocese Berlin, who spared no effort to assist me during the research process. I am glad he had the patience and the confidence in this piece of work and shared with me his subject specific knowledge. Without his technical and mental support this study was not possible.
My genuine gratitude also goes the entire Caritas Team at the Caritas Center Fürstenwalde, where the fieldwork took place. They welcomed me with the same enthusiasm and engagement with which they meet their clients. Due to their expertise and commitment I was able to get into contact with my research participants. By name I want to acknowledge the input of the team leader Thomas Thieme and the help of the social worker Elena Burghardt, as well as that of the volunteers Afsun Karimi and Behzad Zamani. By the same token I want to thank the team of social workers at one collective accommodation center, where I was granted access to carry out this research.
VI
Of course I also owe a heartfelt thanks to all the refugees, who have been willing to participate in the interviews and shared their experiences with me. I was deeply moved by their stories that taught me much more than what has been addressed within the scope of this thesis. I wish them only the best for their future lives.
Finally, I would like to dedicate a personal word to my family and friends. First and foremost, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my parents and grandparents for their continuous emotional and financial support through my studies. Of great help during the sometimes very stressful course of setting up this research, was my loving and caring boyfriend with his indestructible belief in my capability to succeed and see through this endeavor. But the process also involved other people, whom I want to let know how much I appreciate their presence and support in my life. This concerns Jurriën and my dearest friends Virginia and Karolin, as well as my second family overseas especially Anita who checked in parts on my English language. Last but not least I thank Ashley, who edited the language in the other parts.
Dana Ringel
VII
SUMMARY
With unparalleled high numbers of refugees entering Germany within the last few months and an increasing awareness that many of them will stay in Germany for several years, questions on their management and incorporation into the host society become more and more pressing. This is not only discussed within the political discourse, but especially at the local level, where asylum seekers have to be accommodated. In the face of these new challenges, some house providers have departed from the prevailing practice of housing refugees in collective accommodation centers. Instead they have offered shelter in regular apartment units located in predominantly German communities. This is the case in the German Municipality Landkreis Oder Spree where the research was conducted.Apart from relieving pressure on the demand for accommodation in centers, this way of housing is welcomed for its presumed positive effect on asylum seekers. It is deemed to increase independence by providing room to restore decisional autonomy over one’s own way of life. Furthermore, it is expected that the integration process will be facilitated by contact between diverse groups in the same neighborhood. Additionally, decentralized housing could have a positive impact on refugee children during the asylum process by restoring order to their family life and returning the responsibility of parenting to the adults in the family. This way of housing as potential instrument to improve refugees´ overall well-being will be compared to established accommodation forms.
Although appropriate housing is a Human Right, an assessment has never been made in Germany nor in the particular context chosen for this research on which accommodation form the resettled refugees feel better serves their needs. This is especially relevant to refugees, as a positive resettlement process is essential to regain a feeling of home, something which they lost when they took refuge.
In order to fill this gap a comparative ethnographic case study has been designed to document refugees’ experiences of home making processes in either accommodation type (centralized vs. decentralized) and to compare the impact of each on the residents´ well-being. For this purpose the affordance approach to housing has been utilized as recommended by Clapham (2011). This approach assumes that people commonly use their house intentionally in accordance with their personal wants. The environment, therefore, becomes meaningful to the individual in relation to the perception of how well it can be used to fulfill his or her personal needs. Needs, on their part, have to be viewed through the concept of well-being. Different dimensions of the feeling of well-being, specifically “positive relations”, “autonomy”, “environmental mastery” and “self-acceptance” were thus appropriated from Ryff (1989). These dimensions are employed as points of reference to measure experiences of the diverse possible affordances of refugees´ living situations that contribute to or hamper their feeling of well-being. After refugees have been interviewed an assessment is made of their home-making experience in regard to their contacts, social links, environment and feeling of being oneself. The
VIII
results subsequently are compared across the two different accommodation forms to draw final conclusions.
It has been found indeed that decentralized living better serves the needs of refugees, especially in terms of environmental mastery, encompassing issues of co-residence. The crux of the matter is that residents of collective accommodations are put at risk of experiencing intimidation or violence by fellow inhabitants. This deprives them of most basic needs. They may feel that they have returned to situations of disorder and insecurity which they had hoped to escape when they sought refuge. In contrast, those who are accommodated in decentralized living units regain their privacy and experience increased feelings of ownership of the environment. Combined with the advantageous environmental characteristics this aids the process of re-establishing the self, by allowing resumption of individual routines and traditional use of space or by adapting them to the new circumstances. It can also be confirmed that these activities make a positive contribution to family life.
Yet, at the same time there is evidence that certain problems may arise when placing refugees in apartments. First, when they are disconnected from their cultural communities they may feel marginalized. Second, refugees may experience negative encounters in the German neighborhood not only because Germans frequently are reserved in their social interactions, but also the refugees’ lack of knowledge of the German language and of cultural scripts puts them at a disadvantage. Deprecating behavior or (verbal) attacks by hostile Germans in the context of unchosen contact can easily induce a feeling of mistrust and thwart the refugees’ integration efforts. It may compel them to focus solely on their own community to satisfy their needs for positive relations which, in turn, could lead to their separation from the German population. Third, placing refugees in apartments without close professional guidance initially may leave them overwhelmed by the many practical and bureaucratic challenges of their new life in Germany. Thus, empowerment to more autonomy cannot be equated to increased independence. Decentralized living, rather, has to be understood as a means to grant people autonomy to decide for themselves to what extent they want to rely on help by others. External support, however, needs to remain available.
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ... V
Summary ... VII
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background: Asylum Seekers and Trends in Germany ... 2
1.2 Asylum Seekers in the German Administrative System ... 3
1.2.1 Migration and Integration ... 3
1.2.2 Asylum Seekers and Integration ... 4
1.2.3 Local Accommodation of Asylum Seekers ... 7
1.3 Context: Alternative Housing for Asylum Seekers in LOS ... 8
1.4 Problem Statement and Research Aim ... 9
2.
Theoretical Perspectives on Housing ... 13
2.1 Theorizing Home... 13
2.1.1 Conceptual Origins ... 13
2.1.2 House as Home ... 17
2.1.3 The Relationship between Housing and Individual Needs ... 18
2.2 Towards an Analytical Agenda ... 22
2.3 Type of Accommodation and Well-being- As it now stands ... 26
3.
Methods ... 29
3.1 Social-Philosophical Perspectives ... 29
3.2 Choosing a Methodological Approach ... 30
3.3 Cases ... 32 3.4 Data ... 33 3.4.1 Data Collection ... 33 3.4.2 Data Analysis ... 38 3.4.3 Reporting ... 38
4.
Project Analysis:
Refugees´ Experiences of Home-Making: ... 39
4.1 Refugees & Housing at the Fieldwork Site... 39
4.2 (Positive) Relations ... 41 4.2.1 Host-Stranger Contacts ... 41 4.2.2 Intra-Group Relations ... 46 4.3 Autonomy ... 49 4.3.1 Regulations ... 49 4.3.2 Staff-Resident Relationship ... 52
X
4.4 Environmental Mastery ... 56
4.4.1 Material Characteristics ... 56
4.4.2 Co-residence ... 61
4.5 Self-Acceptance ... 66
4.5.1 Autobiographical Determinants & Personal History ... 66
4.5.2 Self-Actualization and Progress ... 67
5.
Interpretation and Discussion:
Refugees´ Well-Being in different Accommodation Types ... 71
5.1 Refugees´ Needs ... 71
5.2 Home-Making in Centralized Accommodation Forms ... 72
5.3 Home-Making in Decentralized Accommodation Forms ... 74
5.4 Controversies and Interesting Lessons from cross-case analysis ... 76
6.
Conclusion ... 79
7.
Reflections ... 83
7.1 Limitations ... 83 7.2 Research Agenda ... 85References ... 87
Appendices ... 91
Appendix A: Needs Hierachy ... 91
XI
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overview Protection Statuses in Germany 5
Figure 2: Reciprocal Human-Environment Relationship 20
Figure 3: Conceptual Model of Home-Making 21
Figure 4: Dimension and Operationalization of Well-Being 26
Figure 5: Most Frequent Countries of Origins of Asylum Seekers
Interviewed in the Context of this Study, split by Type of Accommodation 36 Figure 6: Most Frequent Countries of Origins of Asylum Seekers
allocated to LOS between 2010-2015 37
Figure 7: Number of People Interviewed in each Accommodation Type,
split by Personal Status 37
Figure 8: Germany and the Location & Population of Cities in LOS 40 Figure 9: Collective Accommodation Center´s Public Appearance in Fürstenwalde 50
Figure 10: Impressions Gathered During Observations 60
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in Geneva, article 1 states that the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national”.
This study engaged with those who fall under the above defined group of people. They left their homes to seek refuge elsewhere, because of a feeling of insecurity in their countries of origin. It is about those whose trajectory led them to apply for asylum in Germany and who were then placed in the municipality Landkreis Oder Spree in the state Brandenburg. Central is the question in what ways their housing situation in the place of resettlement affects their feeling of well-being as a significant aspect of receiving protection. Therefore it closely follows refugees’ home-making experiences in different housing types offered to them to determine what best serves their needs. This is relevant in view of article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying that:
(1)
[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2
This introduction provides background information to the readers that help to locate this study within its wider context. To familiarize the reader with the subject matter I begin with outlining the current global asylum trends and how they affect Germany and the management of asylum seekers there (section 1). Then I briefly sketch associated prior and recent developments in the corresponding political field with its particular administrative setting (section 2). Thereafter the reader is introduced to the particular context that prompted the research interest (section 3). The chapter ends with presenting the social-theoretical relevance of this study and its leading question. In addition, a short overview over the structure of this thesis is given at last (section 4).
1.1 BACKGROUND: ASYLUM SEEKERS AND TRENDS IN GERMANY
The world is on the move. In 2014, the UN Refugee Agency recorded an unprecedented growth in global mass displacement, caused by war, conflict or persecution, reaching 59,5 million people, who have been forced to flee from their homes– a number the world has not seen since World War II (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees “UNHCR”, 2015). More than half of them never cross the borders of their countries either. Despite the rapid influx of people into Europe declared as a refugee “crisis” by media and politics, a single European nation cannot be found listed among the top ten refugee hosting countries. In fact the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU) together recorded more than 570,800 asylum claims in 2014, an increase by 44 per cent in comparison to 2013 (396,700). Here five countries received almost 70 per cent of all applications, among them Hungary, France, Italy, Sweden and at last Germany, which has been the country with the biggest share, counting 173,100 asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2014), despite the Dublin Regulation, which states that the asylum application has to be issued in the European country of first entry.
This trend is continuing. According to the figures provided by the German Ministry for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge “Bamf”) Germany has experienced an extensive growth in the number of asylum applications within the years 2014-2015, receiving more requests within this period than in the eight years between 2005-2013 (Bamf, 2015, p.3). At the end of 2015 the ministry reported 476.649 official claims (Bamf, 2016, p.5), meaning that Germany had to deal with managing the accommodation of more asylum seekers than in the year 1992, when a stream of 438.000 people fleeing the Balkan conflict,reached the country, unequaled since WWII. Thereafter refugee numbers increased markedly until 2008 when figures gradually began to point towards an upwards trend again that amounted to the described peak recently (Bamf, 2015).
3
1.2 ASYLUM SEEKERS IN THE GERMAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
1.2.1 MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Against the backdrop of the recent developments the German debate, concerning questions on integration has been accelerated anew. The German Association of Towns and Municipalities demands for example a new integration law, arguing that it would be of no significant relevance to revise the existing “Zuwanderungsgesetz” (immigration law), but that it is seen a necessity to codify the tenet “Fördern & Fordern” (Supporting & Demanding) legally in view of the many arriving refugees. It is thought to be of importance in order to prevent mistakes as they were made in the sixties and seventies, when Germany asked for migrant laborers especially from Turkey to assist its economic growth (Deutscher Städte- und Gemeindebund, 2015).
Based on its constitution Germany is a multi-level governance system. Power is divided between the Bund (Federal State) and the Länder (States). The Bund has major legislative powers, especially in areas which concern the social-economic and juridical integration of the country. However, the Länder have the competences to realize the national tasks and therefore stand central in public administration. Responsibilities are further delegated to the level of the Kommunen (Municipalities), which have a right to selfmanagement, guaranteed by the Federal -and State constitutions. In many areas the Bund is required to restrain from interfering with Länder affairs. Since the Föderalismusreform (Reform of the Federal Structure) in 2006 this rule has gained even more relevance. Major fields, like for example education are regulated by matters of the Länder (Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration, 2012, p.58).
Traditionally the Länder and Kommunen acted relatively independent in the integration field, even though the Bund has taken on more responsibilities for these issues recently with the installment of integration summits, the existence of a German Islam Conference (an instrument for the dialogue between the state and Muslim organizations) and the establishment of the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (Bamf). This ministry manages the decisions on asylum applications, develops and offers integration courses and monitors and researches all developments relevant for migration policy questions (Dekker, Emilsson, Krieger & Scholten, 2015).
However, being directly confronted with practical challenges posed by increasing diversity, the Kommunen often developed their own integration strategies, in many cases long before national harmonization efforts. In this context the Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration concludes in its report, released in 2012 that the integration policy field remains fragmented. Competences to take particular measures in areas relevant to questions of integration, such as education, employment or housing are administered at several levels of governance and would require well- conceived coordination. As such the report highlights the pronounced role that the Kommunen have taken on in issues concerning integration. This is especially true as it comes to the management of asylum seekers
4
and refugees. So, while national levels gradually assumed more responsibilities in question of the integration of regular and long term migrants, dealing with asylum seekers has been left primarily an autonomous field of action for the Kommunen in the past.
1.2.2 ASYLUM SEEKERS AND INTEGRATION
Granting protection for asylum seekers has increasingly become a more restrictive affair in Germany, beginning with the modification of the Asylum Law in 1993 to prevent “asylum abuse and protect those really in need”(see Bamf, 2014). Recently the German government has taken legal steps to reduce the numbers of people with chances to receive refuge by appointing so called “safe countries of origin”. For example, the Balkan states Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are thought by the German Federal Council to fulfil most basic human right standards. The terms of refusing asylum requests from these nations have been considerably eased as it is assumed that there is no justified entitlement to protection, instead, economic motivations for entering Germany are implied. In an official report that evaluated this plan prior to its juridical materialization, the NGO Pro Asyl (2014) voiced serious doubts on the constitutionality of such categorization as the human rights conditions in these countries do not allow for a simple refusal of asylum requests. The same is valid for the most recent aspirations to classify the Maghreb states Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia “safe countries of origin” as well.
German Protection Forms
Hannah Arendt (1979) observed already in the context of another time of “crisis” after the Second World War, when various stateless people entered into all of the different European countries, that states often act as an instrument of the nation, instead of an instrument of law, discriminating against particular groups to safeguard an imagined community1. While modern democracies pledge devotion to granting liberal freedoms and equality before the law, which in the same way is a Human Right, asylum seekers are subjected to various legal categorizations as means of inclusion or exclusion in relation to rights reserved for “regular citizens”. The German State distinguishes between four different protection statuses (see figure 12), each coming with different (housing and movement) rights.
1
Term used by Anderson to define nations (see Yuval- Davis, p.204). This is linked to issues of the politics of belonging, which are discussed in more detail in the theoretical chapter (2)
2
Although there is a legal distinction, the term refugee is applied interchangeably for asylum seeker in this thesis.
5
- 1) §3 Asylgesetz, “Flüchtlingsschutz” (Refugee Protection) is based on the Geneva Convention and established in the German Asylum Law
- 2) § 16a Grundgesetz, “Asylberechtigung” (Asylum Entitlement) is based on the German Constitution. Applicants have to be able to indicate that they are threatened by state sanctions so severe that they violate human dignity to an extent that exceeds what people in the country of question generally have to endure
- 3) § 4 Asylgesetz “Subsidiärer Schutz” (Subsidiary Protection) is established in the Asylum Law and takes effect if neither Refugee Protection nor Asylum Entitlement can be granted and there is serious danger in the country of origin, which includes the execution of the death penalty, torture or inhuman treatment or punishment, or a serious individual threat to the life or integrity of a civilian as a result of arbitrary violence in an international or domestic armed conflict. This can relate to both state and non-state actors.
- 4 § 60 V +VII Aufenthaltsgesetz “Abschiebeverbot” (Ban on Deportation) is established in the German Residence Law and says that a person seeking protection must not be returned if deportation to the target State constitutes a violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR); or there is concrete danger to the person´s life, health or freedom
Figure 1. Overview Protection Statuses in Germany. Source: (Bamf, n.d)
Protection forms 1 and 2 are similar and basically carry the same privileges. Somebody who is granted one of these protection forms is eligible to stay for three years to start with and may choose his or her place of residence freely. Since many of the incoming people prefer settlement in the bigger cities, politicians are concerned about the emergence of ethnic communities, which are assumed to hinder successful integration. Next to that it is feared that the financial burdens of reception and social services for refugees may put undue strain on some municipalities. This is why a law has been adopted, called the “Wohnsitzauflage”, which prescribes to already recognized refugees (protection forms 1 and 2) in which Kommune they have to settle in the first three years after their arrival. People who can prove to have found a job elsewhere, or want to move to a core family member, with a salary of at least 712 € /month are exempt (“Wer gut Deutsch kann, darf bleiben”, 2016; Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, 2016; Flüchtlingsrat Baden-Württemberg, 2016). Those with other protection forms, which allow at first one year of settlement, or those during the procession of their asylum request, are obliged to live in shelters provided by the state.
Non-Integration Premise
With the restriction of the Asylum Law in 1993, many asylum seekers were thought to leave the country in a foreseeable future creating a premise of non-integration for asylum seekers. The acceptance of non-integration for asylum seekers has long been prevalent. However, notwithstanding such measurements, asylum claims have in effect not tapered most recently.
6
On the contrary numbers are growing even further. In the first quarter of 2016 there have been 181.405 applications, indicating an increase by 112.4 per cent in comparison with the same term the year before (Bundesministerium des Innern, 2016) and many of the applicants still have good chances to receive refuge. The percentage of people, granted one or another form of protection equaled almost fifty per cent in 2015, which is the highest amount within the last ten years. This is valid especially for people from Syria, Eritrea, Iraq- where more than ninety-nine per cent of the fled people were allowed to stay, because of severe conflicts in their home countries. A relatively high protection rate is also registered for people from Afghanistan, who received an asylum status in about eighty-six per cent of the cases in 2015. (pp.35-37). These four groups made up about half of the total asylum requests in 2015 (Bamf, 2016). All in all, one might expect a continuous upward trend in this area.
Social Reality-Attitudinal Shifts on Integration
The Federal State allocates asylum applicants to the Länder, according to the “Königsteiner Schlüssel”, a procedure which considers the tax revenues and population density of each State. The Länder are in charge of asylum seekers´ basic livelihood needs, including the Transit Reception Centers where asylum seekers are intended to stay for six to twelve weeks awaiting their first hearing of application. During further procedure the Länder determine a place of residence in the Kommunen. Within the current administrative structures, the Kommunen have thus almost no influence on whom and how many asylum seekers they have to admit to their local communities, but eventually they have to carry into effect their accommodation.
Within this framework, the Kommunen are located in an area of political tension between national orders and local demands in dealing with the inflow of new inhabitants. In practice the national non-integration premise was, and is highly unsustainable. Not only do asylum processions take a disproportionally long time due to the recent overload of requests, but Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp (2015) discuss the practice of “Kettenduldung”, for example, which refers to the repeated suspension of deportations, leading to a condition where many persons with unsettled residence status stay several years in Germany without legal entitlements to integration measurements and have restrictive access to the labor market. This leads to applicants taking legal steps towards lodging objections against negative decisions on their asylum requests. This prolongs the general procedure yet increases the chance of asylum claims being admitted at last. In the face of this, local politicians feel more obliged to open integration channels to asylum seekers in order to safeguard the socio-economic fabric and social harmony of their communities. (Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp, 2015).
The transition from pure politics and towards broader support of integration measurements signaled the growing awareness of the importance of socio-cultural factors that define the relationship between local people and refugees (Aumüller & Bretl, 2008, p.19). Taking this approach, some States started to include asylum seekers in their integration processes voluntarily rather than awaiting national arrangements, this includes the “Flüchtlingsaufnahmegesetze” (laws for regulating the reception of refugees). Up to date, five out of the sixteen States have regarded the broader needs of asylum seekers in their integration
7
policy, including questions of accommodation, but oftentimes without guaranteeing other forms of support, such as social-psychological or juridical services (Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp, 2015).
1.2.3 LOCAL ACCOMMODATION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS
As it comes to accommodation for asylum applicants and refugees there are no clear-cut statutory provisions of national scale to regulate the precise accommodation arrangements or standards in Germany. On theoretical grounds accommodation can be realized in a fully centralized, partly centralized or decentralized way. Lappegard Hauge, Støa & Denizou (2016) describe fully centralized accommodation as being characterized by a self-contained campus on which all shelter - usually former public institutions, office blocks, or industrial buildings-is located, as is an office for staff. In this research the term ‘collective accommodation’ is applied to refer to this type of housing. Furthermore it is referred to partly centralized accommodation, when some of the accommodation is additionally located in the surrounding neighborhoods within a politically defined district. The last one speaks of decentralized accommodation or private housing, when refugees are accommodated in “ordinary homes elsewhere in the community” with a main office for staff, which can be approached by asylum seekers in case they search for information or assistance.
To this day centralized accommodation is the most common housing form for refugees (Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp, 2015, p.38). This might be based on the German asylum law, which handles a somewhat vague formulation concerning the envisaged accommodation type for asylum seekers, stating that asylum applicants are to be sheltered in centralized accommodation centers (Wohnübergangsheime) as a “general rule” (§ 53 Abs. 1 AsylVfG). Following Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp (2015, p.35) this phrasing would actually leave it open to the Länder to interpret the law as an optional-, but not as a “must” regulation. It follows that due to these federal structures and legal obscurities the organization and administration of accommodation differs profoundly in the Bundesländer (see Wendel, 2014).
As previously mentioned the concrete realization of managing asylum seekers in the neighborhood, like offering housing and other provisions, is left to the Kommunen. Ultimately it depends a considerable amount on how the Kommunen themselves and their perception of their integration tasks in relation to asylum seekers, and this is linked to which accommodation types they revert- or which type they are able to offer.
The latter has become increasingly problematic, especially in times of the current rising demand, while many regular accommodation centers have been closed in the past without ever possibly anticipating the most recent trends (Wendel, 2014). Besides, many of the recognized refugees who are entitled to private dwelling in the municipality are forced to stay in the centers when ordinary living space is not immediately available (own experience). In the context of this rather chaotic and diverse conditions with respect to the management of asylum accommodations in different areas, there is to date, a lack of research in Germany, regarding what specific demands asylum seekers themselves voice with respect to the conditions of their
8
housing and which type of accommodation they themselves may prefer (Aumüller, Daphi & Biesenkamp, 2015, p.65).
The following section will briefly introduce the case of the municipality “Landkreis Oder Spree” (LOS), which is located in the Land Brandenburg and which will serve as context to illustrate the current situation. It is chosen as fieldwork site for this research that aims to assess different housing experiences of refugees and their evaluation of the situation.
1.3 CONTEXT: ALTERNATIVE HOUSING FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN LOS
Although it is common practice to offer collective accommodation first, one traditional housing provider, namely the Caritas, has developed a new housing model to relieve pressure, called the “Wohnverbund”, which has been put on the public administration to offer shelter in the municipality LOS. Within this program, applicants who are still in their asylum processes (or those with protection statuses 3 & 4) are accommodated in decentralized apartment units in regular neighborhoods, scattered over the municipality.
The Caritas is a social welfare organization of catholic background. It is guided by the message of the Gospel and based on the Christian social ethics such as human dignity, justice, solidarity, subsidiarity and advocacy. Non-statutory welfare organizations are an important and recognized pillar of the German welfare state. They usually operate independently, but in close partnership with public services. This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity, which dictates that social issues shall be dealt with at the lowest administrative level by the smallest social unit as possible. As such, social welfare organizations in Germany establish the interface between civil society and the state by providing social services where the state is not acting exhaustively and engage in public counselling in the interest of the commons (Caritas, n.d).
Legally this new housing form provided by the Caritas is accepted, because it is presented in the Caritas project concept to pertain to the general character of a collective accommodation center, regularly prescribed by the State´s law. This is applicable to the extent that refugees do not rent the apartment themselves, instead the municipality does. It also allocates the available apartments to asylum seekers. Similarly, the equipment standard (furniture, technical devices) essentially do not differ from those in another type of accommodation. The inhabitants are eligible for mentoring by social workers, just as in collective housing forms. Yet, in contrast to centralized types of accommodations, mentoring is reduced to a few times a month.
Generally this housing model is supposed to empower refugees and improve their start to live in Germany. Before all else, it is meant to increase refugees´ independence as it provides space to restore decisional autonomy over the pursuit of one´s own way of life and to aid the integration process. The latter is thought to be facilitated thanks to the close physical proximity between locals and refugees, which is expected to initiate contact between both groups inevitably. Contact in turn is thought to encourage asylum applicants to face up to new and divergent life worlds.
9
Moreover this type of housing is hoped to serve families to better organize their family life and parenting during the asylum process by this increasing the well-being of the children. Children are said to be less exposed to feelings of uncertainty. It is argued that this feeling is perceived more directly in the environment of a collective accommodation center (Caritas, 2015, p.1).
As far as these assumptions are concerned, an academic evaluation of the effects of this alternative housing form, including the perspective of the asylum seekers themselves, is still lacking. The above demonstrates that adequate housing is more than a right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 25. From the viewpoint of refugees their housing situation in the country of resettlement might be of special relevance for their well-being. Of course, the right to adequate housing as one factor to promote well-being is principally not particular inherent to refugees, but applies to any person. Yet refugees find themselves in exceptional circumstances as their experiences are characterized by the loss of house and home.
1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH AIM
Generally it can be maintained that to strengthen a feeling of well-being is of great societal concern for asylum seekers, as it can be presupposed that these individuals have been exposed to many risks or even bodily harm, not only in their countries of origin, but also during their flight to Europe. This makes them especially vulnerable to possibly develop mental health problems (Hebebrand, Anagnostopoulos, Eliez, Linse, Pejovic-Milovancevic & Klasen, 2015). Fozdar & Hardley (2014) state in this regard that “appropriate housing is vital for the successful settlement of refugees, since establishing a home is part of the process of redeveloping ontological security” (p.148). Owed to their special circumstances, refugees start from a different position compared to “regular” citizens as it comes to attain a feeling of home. The way they are housed may impact, if essential personal needs associated with their well-being can or cannot be satisfied. To foster a feeling of well-being is an elementary foundation for redeveloping a feeling of home.
To be able to achieve this level of well-being is important for refugees, because admission procedures are often prolonged, forcing refugees to remain in reception accommodation involuntarily. Besides, regular housing spaces are not immediately available, even when refugees received protection status 1 or 2 and are allowed to find their own living space. In this time their housing situation should be sufficient to meet central needs from a human rights perspective. This is all the more true when considering that refugees might have to remain in a prescribed community for a considerate amount of time, due to the “Wohnsitzauflage” and currently many of the applicants have better chances towards being allowed to stay in Germany for a longer time. Hence it would be a good idea to focus on promoting a sense of home for them right from the start, in the context of their first housing situation as the public discourse demands considerable integration efforts from refugees.
10
Satisfying housing conditions may be an important element to support this (Lappegard Hauge, Støa & Denizou, 2016).
In the Landkreis Oder Spree alternative and supposedly better housing solutions are sought for people during their asylum procedure. This provides an interesting locus to study refugees’ different resettlement experiences, thus the route asylum seekers take to make a new home. No assessment has been ever made of how refugees experience different types of accommodation, and what might be beneficial for their individual needs in their own opinion, in both Landkreis Oder Spree and in Germany. This theoretical gap needs to be filled. This thesis aims to make recommendations on the type of accommodation that might better serve the wants of refugees. The purpose of the research therefore was to document the housing experiences of refugees, who either live in decentralized or in centralized accommodation forms, and to identify how their specific living situation impacts on their home-making processes and consequently on their feeling of well-being upon settlement in Germany. Even though the conclusions of this study are not simply generalizable beyond its specific context, the insights might yield some valuable theoretical contributions to factors that impact refugees´ well-being in relation to their housing conditions. This leads to the following question, which guides the study:
How do different models of refugee accommodation impact asylum seekers’ experiences of home-making and how does this affect their feeling of well-being?
How do refugees experience home-making processes in collective accommodation types?
How do refugees experience home-making processes in decentralized accommodation types?
What lessons can be drawn from identifying differences in housing experiences, concerning the main interest in what type of accommodation might better serve the needs of the residents and why?
11 Thesis Structure
If we want to assess the experience of resettlement in an academic way, we need to investigate first, from a theoretical perspective, what notions of home are implied in relation to resettlement. The next chapter (2) will be devoted to clarify the scholarly foundations of the conceptual model used for this research and to advance a theoretical framework, which is suitable to come to grips with the initial research aim. After dissecting the research questions conceptually into their diagnostic constituents the third chapter (3) presents the research methods, as well as the underlying philosophical assumptions that inform this study. The perspectives of refugees on their home-making experiences in different housing types are presented in chapter four (4). The following chapter five (5) synthesizes and interprets the insights provided by this analysis, listed according to a specific accommodation form. Here the reader also finds a visual representation of the research results (figure 11). In addition a contemplation of the important lessons we learn from the analysis is offered. The final conclusions are eventually drawn in chapter six (6). The last chapter (7) reflects on methodological and procedural issues that may have posed limitations to this study.
13
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOUSING
This chapter reviews the body of literature on home and housing in order to gather relevant key concepts that assist in building up a theoretical framework to situate this study. For this it is mainly resorted to Clapham (2011) and Ryff (1989), but at first the origins of broader ideas, underlying theories and meanings of home are traced back to their origins (subsection 2.1.1). Only then the concept is explored more narrowly in relation to its involvement with housing (subsection 2.1.2). Hereafter it is resolved how dwelling may attend to fulfill individual needs. From this the conceptual model that forms the backbone of this research results (subsection 2.1.3). During the further procedure of refining the concepts used to guide the study, an agenda arises that is utilized for application in the data collection and analysis process later (section 2). At the close of the chapter a brief assessment is given on the current scientific knowledge in the field of refugee accommodation (section 3).
2.1 THEORIZING HOME
2.1.1 CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS
Home as Belongingness & Politics of Belonging
The meaning of home has been conceptualized by scholars beyond its implication with “housing”. Yuval- Davis (2006) has been the first one, who illuminated the emotional attachment linked to the feeling of being “at home” and about “feeling safe” theoretically (p.197). She conceptualizes it by reverting to the often vaguely applied notion of “belonging”. Principally, she states, “people can belong in many different ways and to many different objects of attachment” [….]; “belonging can be an act of self-identification or identification by others” […](p.199). It appears that belonging is by definition a dynamic process that involves the construction of power configurations. In the following Yuval-Davis figures belonging as a multidimensional concept, featuring three analytical levels on which it is constructed. Respectively she differentiates between 1) social; 2) identificational and emotional, along with 3) ethical and political levels of belonging.
The first mentioned level is determined by one´s social positions, linked to “social and economic locations, which, at each historical moment, have particular implications vis-a`-vis the grids of power relations in society” (p.199). The second levels concerns questions of “longing to belong” and belonging to collectivities and groups and therefore touches upon issues of self- construction and identity. Yuval- Davis understands identity like Probyn and Fortier as a transition “producing itself through the combined processes of being and becoming, belonging
14
and longing to belong”. Hence she puts forward that belonging should not be understood merely as a narrative, thus “stories people tell themselves and others of who they are (and who they are not)”, but instead marks individual emotional investment and the innate desire for social attachment (p.202). However at times people´s stories are not in line with external views on the nature of their identity, resulting in expulsion from the (imagined) community. In such cases the relationship between social locations and identifications becomes more closely intertwined.
The third level then denotes the “dirty work of boundary maintenance”, associated with specific attitudes and ideologies that imply “where and how identity and categorical boundaries are being/should be drawn, in more or less exclusionary ways, in more or less permeable ways” (p.203). That being said Yuval-Davis locates the latter in the realm of the “politics of belonging”. Her work focuses subsequently on nation states and exemplifies the ways political projects are pursued in order to manipulate and attempt to control forms of belonging which often affects especially migrants and refugees, as has been discussed already in the introductory part in the case of German integration policies.
Although Yuval-Davis mentioned the concept of “home” at the outset of her work, the concept is applied only in relation to the nation state and remains ill-theorized. Others have tried to fill such gaps by making clearer the relationship between “home” and “belonging” (Antonsich, 2010) and eliciting dimensions the meanings of “home” can take on (Taylor, 2013)
Home as Place Belongingness
Antonsich (2010) argues that Taylors tripartite framework is overly concerned with politics of belonging. Consequently he reintroduces the concept of “place belongingness”, which is occupied with the intimate feeling of being at home in a particular place, this is being attached to- and rooted in it. The emphasis put on the territorial dimension is of special relevance for Antonsich´s conceptual distinction. Based on Dorling and on hooks he claims that the “absence of this sense of place-belongingness is not exclusion, as scholars usually tend to say […], confusing place-belongingness with the politics of belonging. On the contrary, the absence of place-belongingness is a sense of loneliness, isolation, alienation, and dis-placement” (p.649). Factors that condition a feeling of place-belongingness are cited to be of auto-biographical, relational, cultural, economic, and legal nature. Additionally the length of residence plays an important role according to the author.
Auto-biographical factors enclose childhood memories, memories of ancestors and family members and relate to experiences that constitute one´s “Self”. The same goes for relational factors, which are characterized by social ties that “enrich the life of an individual in a given place”, and equally substantiate a feeling of Self, or so to say, group identity. The belongingness hypothesis, which is based on Baumeister & Leary, states that
“[i]n order to generate a sense of (group) belonging, these relations must in fact be long-lasting, positive, stable, and significant (i.e. filled with affective concerns, with ‘care’); plus, they should also ‘take place’ through frequent physical interaction and reach a minimum number […]” (see Antonsich, 2010, p.647).
15
Antonsich describes furthermore that cultural factors allude to cultural characteristics, such as for instance language as marker of difference and commonality. In the politics of belonging such markers can be instrumentalized as a distinction between “us” and “them”, but for the individual they can also evoke a sense of community. Another factor mentioned by Antonsich to generate a feeling of place belongingness is next to this the embeddedness into a given economy. A stable material condition that can sustain the individual/family signifies safety and furnishes the individual´s feeling of having “a stake in the future of the place” where one lives (p.648). Legal factors contribute moreover to the most vital dimension that induces feelings of belonging, which according to Antonsich is a sense of security. The feeling of being safe is established through the integration into formal structures, by awarding citizenship or residence permits. Similarly this involves guarantying legal protection from persecution or discrimination, as well as granting equal rights. Last but not least Antonsich mentions the influence of time of residence on the feeling of place-belongingness, presuming that the longer the inhabitation, the stronger-place belongingness turns out.
When reviewing home as place-belongingness it is obvious that Antonsich recalls the consideration of territorial features into the equation of belonging and therefore establishes place as a discrete entity of the analysis. Hence belonging is not merely mirrored as a social concept which is purely intertwined with the politics of belonging. Yet it still revolves very much on questions of structural integration. With her critique on what Wimmer and Glick Schiller term “methodological nationalism”, Taylor (2013) reminds us however, that home should be theorized beyond the dominant understanding of belonging to the organization of a particular nation state. Her ideas are presented in the following section.
Meanings of Home
Taylor ´s (2013) work, which engages explicitly with refugees, intends to re-conceptualize the hegemonic “here” and “there” dichotomy that inherits the risk of too easily problematizing this group as the “Other”. This image commonly proliferates a feeling of threat to the identity of an imagined community that is contained by a state´s territorial borders. Building on ideas of transnational theory, she suggests instead that “refugees might maintain a deep, emotional attachment to the lost home, while at the same time making a new home in the country of exile, or indeed in another country altogether” (p.132). Hence “concepts of home are not static but dynamic processes, involving the acts of imagining, creating, unmaking, changing, losing and moving ‘homes’” (Al-Ali & Koser in Taylor, 2013, p.132). In this view, home remains inextricably associated with identity. In her analysis of Cypriots refugee´s meaning of home, as well as how this connects to their creation of a new home, she determines four alternative elements of home that may be relevant to anyone´s meaning of home, but which are subjected to challenges and modifications in case of exile. Here it is distinguished between temporal, relational, material and spatial aspects of home.
The temporal dimension of the meaning of home is worked out by Taylor by reverting to Downing´s observation that ordinary people “navigate a space-time continuum in which they
16
chart their positions within socially constructed time, socially constructed space and among socially constructed personages” (p.142). In this regard memories of traditions -and of important lifecycle events as well as impressions of the permanence of home play a role in meanings with relation to the temporal dimension of home.
The relational dimension of the meaning of home is defined to include “social networks, habitual practices that make one feel home and the accumulated resources that arise from social networking” (p.146). Here the relationship with others in networks is commonly characterized positively as intimate contact with close kin, extend family and fellow villagers conveying a sense of belonging to a community, which is understood as warm, comfortable and safe place (Bauman in Taylor, p.147). When it is referred further to the concept of habitus Taylor borrows from Bourdieu, implying socialized subjectivity. This means
“[…] daily interactions and repeated actions socialise us into a habitual mode of behaviour, which is typical among our community or group. The process of constructing shared values and of passing them on to subsequent generations is an act of home building, in relational rather than physical terms, which usually takes far greater effort and investment than the construction of a house” (p.148).
This process helps us to feel familiar in a place, because we have the necessary information to operate successfully in it. The third relevant facet of the relational home can be grasped by another concept, which equally leans on Bourdieu. This is social capital. Social capital denotes economic, cultural and social resources that are “linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu in Taylor, p.149).
Furthermore there is the material dimension of the meaning of home, which is theorized by features of the natural landscape as for example, geography, vegetation or wildlife. While there may be an economic value to such features in terms of raw materials that sustain one´s livelihood, Taylor notes that such things often have an intrinsic symbolic value to many people. This may be especially true as it comes to cultural foods.
Finally and for this research of particular interest Taylor identified a spatial dimension of the meaning of home. It is delineated to encompass “the houses and other places of dwellings as well as the habitual spaces of everyday activity […]” (p.138). Although dismissing the thought of a natural link between people and place, proposing instead a social constructivist perspective, Taylor points to the fact that physical location can “acquire deep meaning for individuals and communities” (p.140). Inspired by Massey´s concept of “throwntogetherness” and his idea of space as the product of interaction, she puts forward that this meaning is constituted when people act with each other and with the places surrounding them. In the words of Massey, when human and non-human elements of place meet each other (p.140). Important features of this aspect of home that arose from Taylors interviews with the Cypriot refugees are related to meanings of traditions and inside knowledge of surroundings, as well as to the importance of
17
“house” as a “physical container for and location of family history, daily routine and memories” (pp.140-141).
This being ascertained brings us to the subject of housing as an important aspect of the feeling of home.
2.1.2 HOUSE AS HOME
As has been established at this point needs “home” not to be linked to a house, but the house very often functions as physical site, where affections materialize. So there is a strong relationship between the house and the feeling of home. To explain the connection between the two Fozdar & Hartley (2014) employ the work of Easthope, who utilized the notion of “place” to connect “house” and “home”. He contends that “´home´ is a significant type of ´place´ the positive construction of which involves physical space and social and emotional connection, affecting (and effecting) identity and well-being”. They put forward that “it is the association with territory that gives meaning to the notion and provides the locus around which emotions and relationships revolve” (p.149).
Above this the authors highlight the relevance of “ontological security”. In this respect security relates to the trust one has in the human and non-human surroundings. Trust is also based on the knowledge of how to meet one´s needs (p.150). When a feeling of this trust is established, a house can become a home. Blunt & Dowling (2006) emphasize the significance of “home-ownership” in acquiring control over one´s house and putting the owner in the position to create constancy and comfort. Roughly broken down it unfolds that a house is perceived as home when it propels not only feelings of being “Self”, thus aspects of identity, but also of safety.
The way a house gains meaning as home is, next to one´s personal sentiments, also culturally and historically contingent. A house can gain meaning as status symbol or stigmatization, dependent on how it complies with the present day ideals of “homely” home. The historical alterations of what has been perceived as an ideal version of “house as home”, have been mapped out profoundly by Blunt & Dowling (2006). The American suburbs for instance were commonly identified with the white middle-class and their lifestyle ideas. The authors show moreover that dominant normative approaches, realized through housing policies that find their expressions in construction and dwelling patterns, are not of universal appeal. The idea of “home as haven and a separate, private, sphere e.g. does not accord with many African-American experiences of “home”. At the same time can allegedly “homely” homes be experienced as hostile, when their relational dimension is constituted by exploitative associations and fear of- or a feeling of alienation. The physical quality of a house itself infers accordingly not necessarily a causal relationship with the feeling of home.
Housing is therefore also often subjected to the politics of belonging through its intersection with social categories and hence with matters of identity. It may thus also function as political instrument. Alexander (2003) notes for example that public attitudes on migrant
18
integration are often reflected in local authorities’ housing policies, which implicitly inherent a particular philosophy on the supposed nature of host-stranger relations. While multiculturalist policies, which are based on the assumption that pluralism is as an asset for society, accept some form of spatial segregation in housing patterns, assimilationist policies, which shall encourage the adaption of migrants to dominant cultural norms, aim at spatial integration. This also signifies that the house not only serves a place of intimate contacts, but encompasses broader social relations, including those that stretch beyond the physical container, commonly called home.
From here one apprehends that home suggests a symbolic place that features some form of positive emotional attachment towards its material and social elements. Refuge, however, dissociates persons from many of the auto-biographical, relational, cultural, economic, legal and temporal elements that commonly attach people to certain spaces and therefore factor a feeling of place-belongingness as delineated by Antonsich (2010, see 2.1.1). To that effect refugees naturally engage into a proactive process, a practice which Taylor (2013) calls “emplacement”, referring to the assignment of meanings to particular places, when they resettle in a new country. Meanings can be attributed in a positive or negative way and by this stand in correlation to the extent to which refugees may acquire a feeling of home in the new place. Home- making, in my understanding, is thus related to the assignment of positive meanings. Meanings are also rooted in formerly gained understandings of home and therefore connect to issues of identity as we learned from Taylor (2013).
In the next section it will be showed that positive emotions in relation to dwelling experiences are best examined by employing the concept of well-being. At its end the visualization of the conceptual model of this study is presented.
2.1.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSING AND INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
At first, it comes to the question whether there can be a self-reliant theory of housing at all, a stern debate is going on. Kenemy established the view that housing is too closely related to general social subjects, because it impinges upon many areas of life. This makes it too large in scope to authorize an own theory (see Franklin in King, 2009, pp.45-46). King challenges this perspective and asserts instead that all topics of research interest touch upon broader aspects of life, so in fact no particular discipline could develop by itself. This would mean that the only eligible theories are by implication the general social theories. More specific ones could not exist. Yet they do and logically could create a theory of housing, in this manner, concerned with
housing experience, as he argues. As to that a theory of housing should deal with the research
area of private dwelling. On this basis we apprehend that broader categories as economic and legal factors of place-belongingness are rendered minor in the analysis of housing experiences.
Hence, King (2009) distinguishes between housing policy and private dwelling, the first domain is concerned “with the production, consumption, management and maintenance of a
19
stock of dwellings”. In relation to this housing is regarded “as both aggregated and standardized [concept], as an entity capable of generalization”. With that, King contrast the practice of “private dwelling”, something that happens inside, relating to a subjective experience of the “ordinary use of housing, settled on the earth, where we are accepted by the environment and where we ourselves can accept it” (pp.42-43). The activity of dwelling means in this respect that we “use dwellings to meet our ends and fulfil our interests, to such an extent that this singular dwelling becomes meaningful to us. This is an activity in which we are all engaged, or wish to be so engaged, and we see it as seriously debilitating if we are not able to enjoy it” (King in King, 2009, p.42).
Along these lines Clapham (2011) tries to sort out how the use of material things, such as attributes of a dwelling place, is implicated with elements of meanings, like they have been identified in the general literature on the meanings of home. Clapham´s dissatisfaction with the solely prevalent social constructivist paradigm in the housing literature that centers on “symbolic meaning” of housing, but neglects the “functional use elements of the physical environment”, incited him to advance a framework that integrates both as equally relevant.
For this he resorts to “Gibson´s concept of ´affordance´, which focuses on the perception by individuals of the uses or ´affordances´ of the environment” (p.361, my emphasis) and enables the synthesis of “physical and psychical” elements in a theory of housing (see Gibson in Clapham, 2011, p.366). Clapham quotes Gibson´s original definition of the affordance of a material object or environment as “what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill” (p.366). He regards this approach as useful, because it acknowledges, how physical properties of an object (such as a house) may influence human behavior (like performances or practical uses), as well as its meanings (pp.366-367).
By departing from the notion of “uses” that implies active performance and physical action and experience, Clapham draws parallels to the “emotional turn” in human geography with its “emphasis on the role of bodily senses and emotions in relation to places” that “led to a focus on activities and social practices” rather than on representational analysis. In this spirit the human body is not viewed merely as a social construction, but “as an integral component of human agency” (p.363). Schilling points out, “it is our bodies that allow us to act, to intervene in and to alter the flow of daily life” (in Clapham, 2011, p.363). The human-environment relationship is in this reading not simply a discursive product based on the conviction that people “see the material through their own lens of constructed meanings, whether shared or individual” that entails the dualism between people´s subjective mental world and their physical environment. Citing Heft, Clapham explains that, instead of the “mind standing outside the environment”,
“Gibson’s approach conceptualizes the perceiver–environment relationship as a fittedness rather than a separateness and a reciprocity rather than a dualism. The relationship between human and environment is reciprocal and continuous, with learning leading to refined perceptual-action skills and the revelation of new affordance possibilities. The environment can also be changed through human action
