Food for thought : socio-material practices and community building at an Amsterdam North community centre

(1)

Food for thought

Socio-material practices and Community Building at an Amsterdam North

Community Centre

‘The news travels faster here in North than AT5 [an Amsterdam news channel]. Samíra’ Photo from a house in Floradorp, Amsterdam North

Iris van der Doelen 10200991 Urban Sociology First supervisor: Linda van de Kamp Second supervisor: Jan-Willem Duyvendak 10 July 2017, Amsterdam University of Amsterdam Words: 24,228

(2)

1

Acknowledgements

These stories could not have been told if it was not for the respondents sharing their

perspective. In gratitude of all the passionate volunteers of NeighborMeal North, the frank(ly funny) residents and all the other kind visitors and respondents that opened up their minds and homes to me.

This thesis would have not been complete without the insights given by Linda van de Kamp and Jan-Willem Duyvendak. Especially Linda, thank you for sharing your knowledge, the many suggestions and above all the continued enthusiastic support that made me love what could be my last academic venture.

I, and thus this thesis, would not have existed if it was not for my parents: Frans van der Doelen and Ivonne Coppens. Words cannot express your value or importance to me. Thank you for always being there for me and letting me see a world filled with opportunities.

And who knows what would have been written down if it was not for the critical eyes of my little brother Bram, fellow sociologist Bente and my oracle Emma.

(5)

4

Abstract

Through observations and interviews at an Amsterdam North community center in a white working class neighborhood, it was noticeable how conflicts and struggles for the claim of space rose. NeighborMeal, the researched initiative at the community center, did not only provide a meal, but also a place for a small group of residents to get to know each other and bond. However, the bonding of these residents threatened the ‘feeling at home’ of the other groups participating. In some cases even excluding them. The existing socio-material practices

unintentionally contributed to this exclusion and sometimes new socio-material practices were created intentionally to strengthen their claim. It leads to the conclusion that developing ‘friendly ties’ that bridge differences is difficult without a framework. As well as showing that socio-material practices can be the expression of a struggle and (cultural) differences, but can also play a big role in shaping the building community processes.

(6)

5

1. Introduction

‘Food connects! With NeighborMeal we make a better neighborhood: we bring residents together, help each other and combat food wastage ... NeighborMeal picks up the leftovers from supermarkets and restaurants. During the afternoon the local residents cook a delightful and free

meal. They can choose whether they eat with the “gezellige1_{” communal meal or whether they}

would rather take the meal home.’ (website, 9 July 2017)

This thesis examines a location of the Foundation NeighborMeal in a former working class area of Amsterdam North. NeighborMeal is an organization that provides free meals in local

community centers. The above quote of the website of NeighborMeal explains its two main goals. The meals are made from food that restaurants, catering services and supermarkets donate, which they otherwise would throw away. Another goal is to connect neighbors through a communal and 'cozy' meal and thereby (socially) improving the neighborhood. Or as the initiator of NeighborMeal, put it during a public event: 'It is not only the food, it is also the meeting of people. That is very important to us. Our philosophy is that food connects'. There is the assumption that sharing a meal will be ‘cozy’ and automatically connects and betters the neighborhood. The act of sharing a meal is therefore expected to have a positive effect. NeighborMeal assumes that food connects and builds a community.

1.1 NeighborMeal

There are multiple NeighborMeal sub-organizations in Amsterdam, the capital of the

Netherlands, which are all hosted in local community centers in Amsterdam. For this research proposal the organization NeighborMeal North is chosen as the research location. This because it was, (at that point of time,) the newest addition to the NeighborMeal organization, which means that the community building and also forming was taking place. This makes it an interesting case for research as the made ties are still new and could possibly be more easily unfolded. The location opened in December 2016 and fieldwork started in January 2017. According to the initiator of NeighborMeal, Jelte, the NeighborMeal-meals are very accessible.

'We don't have any criteria, so everybody can come in. That makes it very accessible; people don't have to register, they don't have to give a voluntary contribution or whatever. There is also no shame in coming, because you are doing something good

1

Gezellig(e) is a Dutch word that could be translated to ‘cozy’, in this context it means a nice friendly atmosphere. Gezellig can also be used as an adjective for a person, activity or place and also as a noun to say ‘that was gezellig’.

(7)

6 against food-waste. So we are actually reaching people that have nowhere to go.

Now we have five locations and there is a new one coming in Old-West. We now have 1000 meals and 100 volunteers. It is very expandable, that's the fun thing. We are working on a neighborhood level so the people are organizing the meals in their own area.'

NeighborMeal appears to be a very accessible initiative. As Jelte states, NeighborMeal does not ask a (voluntary) contribution, to sign up in advance or has any requirements for the visitors. On top of that, North is one of the few NeighborMeal locations that organizes their dinners after work-hours. It therefore also open to people with a full-time job and thus it has the possibility of the most varied visitors.

1.2 Theoretical and Societal Relevance

So how do contacts and connections between visitors unfold and what is the role of (sharing) food in these processes? This will be done by looking at how socio-material practices shape the dynamics of community building in NeighborMeal North. Socio-material practices lay the emphasis on the fact that the material (such as the taste of food) cannot be seen separately from the social (Law & Mol, 1995). The social and material are produced together. Therefore. the material can influence the process of community building, an aspect that is often underexposed in academic research (Leonardi et al, 2012). Furthermore this thesis builds on literature on community building in neighborhoods and the dynamics of ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’. Bonding occurs when you get to know or befriend people that are similar to you, which can be a result of sharing anything from race, religion or even the same football club. Whereas bridging means connecting with people that are dissimilar to you. However, these processes can have a negative side, for too much bonding is often associated with excluding others. Furthermore bridging seems difficult to achieve. Forced bridging in a neighborhood can lead to one group claiming public space, which poses a threat for other people and their feeling at home. Thus this becomes a starting point for conflict. A solution for this can be amicability, where there is an aim for ‘friendly’ ties instead of friendships, resulting in a focus on shared activities instead of shared identity (Duyvendak & Wekker, 2003). However, the question remains if this shift towards shared activities, such as sharing a meal, is enough to avoid conflict?

These processes cannot be seen separately from their context. NeighborMeal North is located in a white working class neighborhood in Amsterdam North. Amsterdam North has a very strong white working-class culture. Thus this case study will give insights into how community building is influenced by the social context of the neighborhood and what underlies conflicts that arise within NeighborMeal North. Furthermore this thesis will provide theoretical insights

(8)

7 into the importance of socio-materiality on the process of community building and the

possibilities of amicability. It will provide clarity into the limitations of community building activities and leads to recommendations for a better approach.

1.3 Reading Guide

The next chapter is chapter 2: Research Context, which will give background information about the local and national context of the neighborhood, such as the Dutch Policies and the History and Identity of Amsterdam North. Chapter 3 provides the Theoretical Framework which leads up to the research question. Chapter 4 discusses how the research was conducted by explaining the Data Design, Research Methods, Operationalization and Data Analysis.

After the Methodology, the results of the research are divided up into two chapters. Firstly, Chapter 5, which goes into different visions of NeighborMeal and how these are affected by socio-material practices. Chapter 6 'Community Building' deals with the dynamics of community building that takes places at NeighborMeal North. Chapter 8 is the Conclusion, where the results will be discussed and linked to the theoretical framework.

(9)

8

2. Research Context

This chapter provides the necessary background information which forms the backdrop of the research done in this thesis. Firstly, Dutch Neighborhood policies and their background will be discussed. This will be followed by a short description of the type of community building activities in Amsterdam North, such as sharing a meal. Lastly, Amsterdam North will be discussed, which includes its social history and the Identity of Northerners, and more specifically the current demographics of the neighborhood.

2.1 Dutch Neighborhood Policies

In the Netherlands there has been a long track record of policies involving social-mixing in deprived neighborhoods. It is often suggested that policy that promotes social mixing can strengthen the socioeconomic status of a disadvantaged neighborhood. According to Uitermark (2003) the Netherlands has perhaps ‘the most ambitious and well-funded social mixing policy’ (p. 531). As Uitermark demonstrates with the white paper from the ministry of VROM2_(1997), explaining the plans of restructuring 170 neighborhoods which included 12 per cent of all Dutch households. This restructuring policy has been predominant in the recent history of Dutch Neighborhood Policies. By ensuring a presence of affluent household the government policies want to stabilize the social tissue of certain neighborhoods. However, the assumption that social mixing automatically leads to social interaction is a false one (Uitermark, 2013).

More recently, there has been a perceived failure of Dutch models of integration, leading to a search for alternative frameworks to create community cohesion (Uitermark, 2014). Critique on the multicultural society and the failure of integration became more visible in public debate after an article by Paul Scheffer (2000). Scheffer dubbed it the ‘multicultural tragedy’, pleading that other groups should integrate based on the Dutch values. This debate and the emergence of political parties expressing these doubts, influence and shape the more recent neighborhood policy in the Netherlands. The residential segregation and erosion of traditional social

structures in urban neighborhoods has since been linked to globalization and migration. Policy is influenced by the fear that these tensions will dislocate the society as whole (Uitermark, 2014). The ethnic majority working class feels displaced due to the influx of immigrants, which allegedly leads to the decline of social cohesion in urban neighborhoods (Wilde & Duyvendak, 2016).

Therefore, the current model for integration focuses on community cohesion, which prioritizes the integration of poor minority groups through the incorporation of these groups in their neighborhoods and cities. Through a mix of repressive and social policies the government tries

(10)

9 to (re)gain control over these deprived urban areas (Uitermark, 2014). Recent urban policies in the Netherlands have been concerned with the links between a person’s immediate

environment and their socio-economic status and development, following a trend present in Western Europe. The focus is not on poverty itself, but on processes of social exclusion that could lead to poverty, such as interactions between adults, the presence or absence of supportive social networks, youth behavior, exposure to crime and violence, the quality and availability of public services and distance of the neighborhood from places of employment (Open Society Foundations, 2014).

A governmental strategy is implemented to not only seek the solution in the nation and the identity as a Dutch person, but in the neighborhood. This by seeing neighborhood communities as localized, collective spheres of belonging (Wilde & Duyvendak, 2016).

2.2 Community Building Activities

From the new millennium onwards, the Netherlands has stressed the importance of citizen participation for dealing with neighborhood issues such as social segregation. Citizen participation is used as part of policy goals. The national government provides these policy goals. However, implementation became the responsibility of the local institutions,

governments and residents. Thus community building activities are not only due to the public-spirited behavior of citizens, but also due to the actions undertaken by local institutions to stimulate engagement and initiatives (Wilde et al, 2014).

Subsequently, this strong focus on community building in Dutch neighborhoods has led to many activities. The initiatives are seen as a way to strengthen live-ability of deprived neighborhoods and aim to make people feel at home in their neighborhood. The initiatives vary in a wide range of activities, organizations, funding (from municipality subsidies to crowd-funding) and other characteristics. Community centers, such as Huis van de Wijk3_{in Amsterdam North, offer many} activities. This ranges from language classes, Pilates, bingo, choir, to ‘walk-in hours’ where you can come if you need help with your debts, computer or simply to chat and have a cup of coffee. In this thesis the organization NeighborMeal in Amsterdam North is the main research subject, but as shown it does not stand on its own as an initiative aimed at bringing people together. It does not even stand on its own as an activity that focuses on connecting people through sharing a meal in Amsterdam North. An overview of the amount of activities surrounding sharing a meal, is shown in the booklet ‘Let’s eat!’ 4_{. This booklet was published by the sub-municipality}5

3

The four locations of Huis van de Wijk are managed by welfare-organizations, which receives subsidies from the municipality.

(11)

10 Amsterdam North. It contains all initiatives which provide opportunities to share a meal on a structural basis. They had 2000 copies printed for this third version of the booklet. It begins with the following introduction:

‘This book offers an overview of all different places in Amsterdam North where you can enjoy a cheap and delicious meal together’.

‘A good meal is important for everyone. It has nothing to do with age or background. Good food is the engine of our body: the foundation to function and to eat healthy. But a meal also lets you connect, eating together is so much more fun than alone’ … ‘People you can count on, you can trust and who you can have a good conversation with. You can meet them when you eat together! Sharing a meal together can also lead to building and maintaining a circle of people around you. In this book there are enough places where you can chose from and where you are invited to come and enjoy a meal’.

The text suggests that these activities can perhaps overcome barriers such as age and

background, since everybody needs to eat. Sharing a meal is more than just the functionality of nutrition and the booklet even creates the impression that through sharing a meal you can meet people for a conversation or even become friends. The sub-municipality clearly sees

opportunity to make people connect through these activities. On the next page it shows a map of Amsterdam North with 26 places where people can come and eat.

5_{In Dutch: stadsdeel, the municipality of Amsterdam is divided up into seven stadsdelen which focus on}

(12)

11 The following pages of the booklet show all the initiatives with summaries of these initiatives. Each page states when it takes place, where, the price, information about reservation, contact details, any special comments, a picture and a quote from a visitor or the organization.

2.3 Social History of Amsterdam North

The focus on the neighborhood as a means to improve the life of residents has been at the basis of the building of the working class neighborhoods in Amsterdam North. In 1915 new

residential areas for the blue collars workers at North’s industries were built on a massive scale. In the overcrowded cities a new vision of life was offered to the working class by presenting these new neighborhoods (Kok, 2016). This was in great part due to the Woningwet (Housing-law) that became effective in 1902. Houses now had to meet requirements to prevent dangerous and unhealthy housing. In 1914 the government started to intervene and set up strict

guidelines, but also financial stimulation for building new housing such as in Amsterdam North (Beekers, 2012).

Two groups moved to the North; firstly laborers, who worked in the docks or heavy industry. Secondly the unemployed, singles, elderly and ‘anti-social’ living in ruinous housing were led to North with a rent discount that was only applicable in North (Kok, 2016). All this created a specific working-class culture in Amsterdam North, which was imposed and internalized with what Leydesdorff (1990) called 'modern working-class values'.

(13)

12 Residents in Amsterdam North often moved due to the promise of an improvement of the standard and quality of life. They would get decent housing, and the long journey to the docks with the ferry would no longer be necessary. Between blocks of 'decent families', the ‘anti-social’ would be housed. They were housed in garden towns (Tuindorpen), which were based on the idea that decent housing with plenty of light, fresh air and green surroundings would improve the social and individual wellbeing of the inhabitants (Open Society Foundations, 2014). They had a 'town-like' appearance due to the low-rise, family orientated housing and the green surroundings. The hope was that through this lay-out they would slowly get re-educated. The ‘anti-social’, the ‘dangerous’ working class, would hopefully find its way into a civilized world (Leydesdorff, 1990). The Social Democrats applied a ‘re-education’ in the garden towns, where:

'The dream of both Social Democrats and the bourgeoisie was that in the north they would start not only a new life but also a new way of life. Here they would be different from the way they had been in the old days, adapting to new values and morals'.

(p. 47, Leydesdorff, 1990)

Solitude, concentration in separate residential areas and re-education are the words that summarized the policy from 1914 until 1971 for the ‘anti-social’ families and people. Through ‘re-educating’ the residents of these garden towns, they hoped to achieve this ideal. Inspectors came by the houses to see if the ‘anti-socials’ kept a good home. This would also educated them about the right values and norms and how to keep a good home (Dercksen & Verplanke, 2005). If the residents behaved well, they could get promoted to other towns such as Floradorp. However, due to the stigmatizing effect, these towns were usually not seen as a success (Kok, 2016).

The optimistic scenario that was sketched for the people that moved out of the inner city turned out quite differently. The industry declined after the First World War, leaving many workers unemployed. On top of that, the working class of Amsterdam North kept being stigmatized by its origin as a ‘dangerous’ or ‘anti-social’ class (Leydesdorff, 1990).

The stigmatization was in contrast with what the Northerners thought of themselves. They perceived themselves as modern and living under healthier circumstances than before. They stressed the importance of education, community work and solid neighborhood ties. According to Leydesdorff (1990), they described North as a place where there is solidarity, a place where one can leave the door open all day, 'as in a village'. When Northerners described North, they emphasized the nature of life in North and expressed it in nearly rural terms. There was a difference of 'we' from the ‘countryside’ against 'they' from the city. The Northerners felt and thought they did not belong to the city of Amsterdam (Leydesdorff, 1990).

(14)

13 There were three moments in time when a large amount of new residents came into North which had an impact on the social composition. The first was the discussed rise of Tuindorpen. The second was an expansion in the sixties, making the original Tuindorpen old-North. This expansion added new, more northern, neighborhoods where middle-class families settled. The third was in the nineties when North again received a lot of residents from a 'dangerous class'. This time the new residents were families from ethnic minorities with issues relating to criminality, money issues or drugs. They came from other parts of the city, where the sub-municipality board implemented city renewal to 'clean' the sub-municipalities (Kok, 2016). It seems that recently Amsterdam North has made a turn around. Newspapers (such as het Parool, 2017) often state that North, and especially Old-North, are going through a process of gentrification. A very broad definition of gentrification is the transformation of space for more affluent users (Hackworth, 2002). According to van Gent (2003) the recent ‘wave’ of

gentrification in Amsterdam came from the liberalization of the housing system in the Netherlands. The municipality of Amsterdam started to actively pursue gentrification. The liberalization and pursuit of gentrification was apparent in the selling of a big parts of the social-housing stock in Amsterdam to cater the ‘superior form of tenure’, which is homeownership. The displacement of the working-class at expense of a new middle-class presence has often been linked to the process of gentrification.

In Amsterdam North gentrification is perceived as the process where young urban

professionals (yuppies) move into older urban neighborhoods. This leads to rising prices of houses, which often leads to the displacement of the original (low class) residents that can no longer afford to live there (Kok, 2016). However, research by Hochstenbach and Van Gent (2015) shows that where this tenure conversion may contribute to gentrification, in the case of Amsterdam North, it actually facilitates the downgrading of the housing market status.

Nevertheless, the research from Open Society Foundations (2014), about the white-working class communities in Amsterdam North, shows that Northerners expressed concern about immigrants but also about ‘yuppies’ moving to Amsterdam North. The key issue was the

inability of newcomers to adapt to unspoken codes of behavior. They do not greet people in the street or contribute to the existing community spirit. Kok (2016) states that there is a

'yuppenphobia’6_{, which is a deeply rooted annoyance of the old Northerners. The predominant} feeling is that yuppies should go back to where they came from and that they do not belong in Amsterdam North.

(15)

14

2.4 Amsterdam North Identity

'Crazy North' is often how North is called. Northerners are generally known for being willful. The idea exists that separated by water from Amsterdam from isolation, they created their own norms and values. The social history of North has determined the culture (Kok, 2016). The idea of thinking of the neighborhood as a town. This leads to the community having their own ways and even their own culture, is still a pre-dominant way of thinking amongst current residents (Open Society Foundations, 2014).

This general perception is visible in the recent Saturday special of the Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool. In the twelve different articles about North, different aspects about the place are highlighted: from more recent developments such as the yuppenphobia, to the lasting struggle of not being quite part of Amsterdam (Het Parool, 2017; Kok, 2016). Or how Amsterdam North designer Ronald Hooft puts it in his interview: 'Bring your passport, that's how far North felt' (Quaegebeur, 2017). North as a whole is described as 'a village that secretly wants to be a city', and also as 'neighborhoods are like little islands, they all have their own character' (Van Gelder & Van Zoelen, 2017). The sentiment is that North is more a town than part of the city Amsterdam, which was noticed by Leydesdorff in 1990, is still part of the image of and identification with Amsterdam North.

Due to the focus on civilizing the workings class residents, there were not many pubs in Amsterdam North. Instead, the authorities offered a lot of socio-cultural services such as churches, sports and theatre. This explains why there are still just a few pubs and cafes in Amsterdam North, but also why there are so many community centers (Leydesdorff, 1990). The same (historic) path dependence found in the spatial planning aspect of North, can also be found in the social aspect. Northerners feel that they have their own identity, separate from

Amsterdam and derived from the social history from Amsterdam North.

In sum, people imagine Amsterdam North to be a town, or to have many towns. Being long separated from Amsterdam by the water, there is a strong localized identity. Northerners express a strong sense of belonging to their neighborhood. Being geographically separated from the rest of Amsterdam by water and other objective differences (lower income, unemployment and other low scores on other social indicators) reinforces this local sense of identity. Being from Amsterdam North is something fundamentally different than being from another borough in Amsterdam. There is a strong sense of community among original residents, they are even seen as family. There are strong territorial boundaries around the neighborhood, which are sometimes class-related. The prototypical resident is described as contrasting with the before mentioned yuppies; the Northerners are honest, direct, simple and hard-working. The yuppies

(16)

15 are considered unable to adjust because they do not introduce themselves, greet the neighbors or have a chat in the street. They choose to dress differently, to send their children to elite schools outside North and transport themselves on carrier tricycles7_{(Open Society Foundations,} 2014)

(17)

16

3. Theoretical Framework

The Theoretical Framework is divided up into two sub-chapters. Firstly ‘the socio-material practice of sharing a meal’ which deals with socio-material practices but also with taste and cultural capital. The second is ‘community building’, which goes into different theories surrounding community building and its implications.

3.1 The socio-material practice of sharing a meal

Socio-material practices

An evening at NeighborMeal contains two very important aspects to consider. Firstly, sharing a meal has a material aspect which is the food itself and secondly, the social aspect which is eating it together or the ‘sharing’ of the meal. Law & Mol (1995) state that materiality and sociability are produced together, so these two aspects can actually not be seen separately from each other. Materiality can be seen as a solid matter, such as food. Where the sociality has to do with

interactive practices. Yet, materiality cannot be seen as purely material and the social cannot be seen as purely social. ‘Materials are interactively constituted; outside their interactions they have no existence, no reality’ (Law & Mol, 1995, p. 277). Socio-materiality states that all materiality is social and created by social processes. They are interpreted and used in social context (Leonardi et al, 2012). The same applies to human actors, where a person can be defined differently depending on the circumstances or materials. For instance, a person can be defined in different ways: as a female student, a physical body or a daughter, this all depends on the relationality (Law & Mol, 1995).

This socio-material approach originates from actor-network theory (Latour, 2005) which suggests that the distinction between what is social and material is made by scholars to divide the disciplines. It is not actually a distinction that exists. Using the term socio-materiality therefore reminds one that all materiality is social in that it was created through social processes, so we cannot actually talk about materiality separately from the social. Social practices such as sharing a dinner shape the materiality of food and thus its effects. But it also works the other way around; all social action is influenced or even possible because of some materiality, as for instance that there is food makes sharing a meal possible. ‘In other words, talking about socio-materiality is to recognize and always keep in mind that materiality acts as a constitutive element of the social world, and vice versa’ (Leonardi et al, 2012, p. 32). The social and material aspect of sharing a meal come together, as a package.

(18)

17 Harbers and colleagues (2002) note that especially food is socio-material; it is an entanglement of the social and the material in everyday life. Food is loaded with meaning and is crucial to not only survival, but also to social relations. They argue that the entanglement, the mix between care (social) and nutrition (material) proves vital in their analysis of the food in wards and nursing homes. Food is treated as means to an end, which is physical survival. However, there is so much more which proves to be important then considering food just a means to an end. The taste and structure of food, the table setting, the sounds such as hearing people eat, and other social and material ingredients that shape the sharing of a meal, all matter. Combined they give varied means to an end, and can generate sadness or joy. In their observations in a nursing ward, the taste of chocolate provided the explanation. In the case examined by Harbers and colleagues, an elderly woman did not eat anything except if it had a chocolate flavor, the materiality (of chocolate flavored food) was crucial to the care practices in this case.

However, differences in materiality can also represent a strategy and therefore impact sociality consciously according to Law & Mol (1995). They use the example of Winner (1986) of how artifacts have politics to show this. The example is the bridge designed by Robert Moses over the Long Island Parkway, which design discourages buses and promotes cars. He did this so that poor (and often black) people that often used public transport were thereby kept away from the public park at Jones’ Beach. Moses later even vetoed a proposed extension of the Long Island Railroad to maintain this strategy. So a strategy can be applied to materiality to have a

conscious impact on sociality. Materiality can also have different forms or (planned) strategies, where one object can perform differently in different settings. Here Law & Mol (1995) use the example of a probe being used in different settings by a surgeon, a midwife and technician in very different ways. Instead of stressing the differences or similarities, stress the partial connections between these probes. There are different entities that suggest material multiplicity.

So when researching evenings at NeighborMeal, the food cannot be seen as independently from the social. Even their slogan 'Sharing until the last crumb' shows how intertwined the social and the materiality are. Together you share -social- the meal -material-. The concept of

socio-materiality creates the awareness that the social context can shape how the meal is interpreted, but the social context can also shape the meal. A salient issue that emerged, was the question that rose during the observations: does it taste good? How social structures influence the interpretation of the material, becomes very clear through the case of the taste of food.

(19)

18 Taste & Cultural Capital

A good example of how materiality is produced together with sociality is taste, as demonstrated by Harbers and colleagues (2002) in the case of the importance of the chocolate flavor for an elderly woman in a nursing home. The individual taste of a person, such as the elderly woman liking chocolate, can be influenced or even explained through social or cultural structures. Bourdieu (1984) explains taste as being part of a cultural structure, where a certain taste represents certain class. Taste is thus not solely the result of an individual’s choice. Bourdieu explains the impact of social structures on taste through the concepts of capital, field and habitus.

There are three forms of capital one can possess: social, cultural and economic capital. Economic capital is the possession of economic resources, such as money. Social capital is the potential possession of a social network. Lastly, cultural capital, which can exist in three forms. Firstly, it can be embodied through dispositions of the mind and body. Secondly, cultural capital can be also be objectified in the form of cultural goods such as books. Thirdly, cultural capital can exist in an institutionalized form of educational qualifications (Bourdieu, 1986). The position of a person in this field is determined by the amount and composition of types of capital that they possess. Bourdieu (1986) first used cultural capital to ‘explain the unequal achievement of children originating from the different social classes by relating academic success … to the distribution of cultural capital between the classes and class fractions’ (p. 17).

Bourdieu (1984) sees various multidimensional fields in society. Within this fields, people are agents that struggle for power. Agents try to alter the distribution of the different forms of social, cultural and economic capital. The fields have their own sets of rules and although these fields are often separated, they can overlap. The appreciation for certain cultural capital can differentiate. For example, the cultural capital needed to have academic success at the university can be very different then the cultural capital needed to be successful at being a carpenter.

The habitus is the physical embodiment of capital. The habitus places you in the field and guides people through their habits, skills, and dispositions. Bourdieu compares it to sports, where in a football game every player has a ‘feel for the game’. The player does not consciously think about how to kick a ball. Likewise, the habitus guides people through social environments.

Within the field ‘consumption’, Bourdieu sees class not as a real group, but as a theoretical construction to characterize the habitus of people with a similar possession of capital (Allen &

(20)

19 Anderson, 1994). For example, it is more likely someone from a lower class would love fries, whilst someone from upper class prefers to have sushi. Both display a certain kind of cultural capital and the taste that goes with this capital. Since the meals served at NeighborMeal are made in bulk and do not vary much in possibilities, this could provide differences in experience when people with very different taste (thus cultural capital) come to enjoy a meal. Furthermore, the creation of the meal could knowingly or unknowingly display a strategy, such as showing certain cultural capital.

3.2 Community building

Community building has been viewed as a major method for improving the quality of the physical environment, enhancing services, preventing crime, and improving social conditions and therefore in their view ‘to better the neighborhood’ (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Minkler, 2012). Two approaches to community building are dealt with in this section. The first concerns bridging and bonding as well as the criticism on this theory coined by Putnam. The second is the proposed solution to criticism, to aim for amicability instead of bridging and bonding.

Bonding, Bridging and Exclusion

Community building is seen by Putnam (2001) as the possession of social capital. He sees the behavior of individual citizens as determining if engagement succeeds. Community groups and social networks are understood by the bridging and bonding of social capital. Bonding occurs when you get to know or befriend people that are like you, which can be on very different aspects: anything from race, religion or even the same football club. The focus hereby is on group identification and homogeneity. The second is bridging, which is connecting with people that are unlike you. These are more loose and distant social ties and brings people together from other social divisions. Putnam especially describes an important role to bridging in cities, where there is a greater heterogeneity amongst people (cf. Wirth, 1938).

Both mechanisms of bridging and bonding are perceived as social capital. Bridging and bonding enhance people their social networks and can improve their lives and ability to be

self-sufficient. Putnam (2001) states that both forms of social capital strengthen each other and are both are needed. In his own words:

‘Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of a similar sort. This is an

important distinction because the externalities of groups that are bridging are likely to be positive, while networks that are bonding (limited within particular social niches) are at greater risk of producing externalities that are negative.’ (p. 234)

(21)

20 Putnam puts the emphasis on bridging being something inherently positive, whilst only bonding networks has negative sides. In other words, when a homogenous community becomes very close there is a possible downside. The established group could lead to exclusion of others. There are many academic scholars that show that a sense of community among one group of residents, inherently involves the exclusion of others (Elias and Scotson 1994).

De Wilde and colleagues (2014) criticize Putnam and other behavioral approaches. They found that they give more importance to the quantity of social relations of community groups, than the quality and the maintaining of these relationships. It is missing the concept of ‘social capacity’, which is the ability to organize and engage in problem solving, which is essential for the success of a community group or neighborhood initiative. Lichterman (2009) states that the social capacity often depends on the level of education of volunteers and associates it mostly with a higher cultural capital. Wilde and colleagues (2014) note in their analysis that mostly higher educated community groups are favored by local institutions, which increases the success rate of these groups, and thereby increases the inequality between high and lower educated community groups.

Other scholars have also taken issue with Putnam’s conclusions and the behavioral approach to understanding communities. This is either because of flaws in his data analysis (Ladd, 1996), or his conceptualization of social capital as always positive, whilst not giving enough attention to the downsides of social capital. Such as that strong ties lead to exclusion, but also that social networks can foster negative behavior (such as gangs) or pressures for conformity (Portes & Landolt, 1996). Portes (1998) warns to avoid the trap of presenting community networks as solely positive. Attention for the negative consequences are needed for a balanced picture. The same feature of social capital that can either give a wanted (positive) outcome whilst also producing unwanted (negative) results.

Feeling at Home in (semi-)Public Space

Duyvendak and Wekker (2003) note various cases in the Netherlands where the attempt of mixing different groups (often different ethnic groups) in the Netherlands have disastrous consequences. Such as the purposely mixing of a neighborhood, where a street has the renters on one side and the home-owners on the other. This case proves that the limits of home seem to be very sensitive to deviant behavior and outsiders, and once the feeling of home is disturbed it hits a deep emotion (Reinders & Bosch, 2012).

(22)

21 The will to make the neighborhood or public space a home for everybody often has the opposite effect. Interventions and initiatives aimed at maximizing ‘feeling at home’ lead to conflicts between groups within the neighborhood. Feeling at home is important for a neighborhood, because it is often associated with an interconnection between neighbors and social control. Yet, when one group feels too much at home and claims the space, this sense of security and

belonging disappears for the other residents and it becomes a starting-point for many social conflicts. Social conflicts that the policy interventions, such as the introduction of neighborhood meals, try to prevent.

Duyvendak and Wekker (2003) state that the amount of control that people have over public space is an important factor for one’s feeling at home. Feeling at home is a selective feeling, that can only happen in a certain place with certain people (often the trusted few). Therefore, when ‘others’ enter the public space, this can pose a threat to the others feeling at home. Especially if the public space is being claimed by a group that they experience as threatening. The

combination of different cultures can lead to great tensions. A big part of feeling at home is about the fit between who we are and where we are, or as Duyvendak and Wekker note is what Bourdieu (1984) would call the fit between habitus and habitat. So bridging might not be inherently positive as Putnam suggests, it may have a greater potential to fail then bonding. Research even suggests that within Dutch neighborhoods, that consist of a lower class, there is more potential boundary-drawing between groups. Residents with a lower socio-economic status are more oriented towards the immediate neighborhood and have a stronger network here. Therefore, they are more sensitive to problems in the neighborhood and develop negative opinions about the other group as a reaction (Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling, 2013). This aligns with a report by the Amsterdam Municipality (Wonderen & Cohen, 2013). It states that conflicts occur if there is little consensus on the unwritten code of conduct (for example on greeting, cleanliness etc.). The lack of familiarity is the central reason for tensions. Residents do not recognize each other and do not dare to address each other. This turns into a feeling of disempowerment, which makes mixed neighborhoods more conflict sensitive areas. This is why Blokland and Nast (2014) propose the need of public familiarity, which is to ‘both recognizing and being recognized in local spaces’ (p. 1143).

Duyvendak and Wekker (2003) found public familiarity is a necessary requirement for the city. However, people want more than to just live together in the same street. They want to feel at home. The aim to make everyone feel at home goes too far, however the aim for public

(23)

22 familiarity is not far enough. They propose amicability, a ‘light’ sense of home. Unlike a

friendship (how bonding and bridging is often used), amicability is possible even if one is not the same in shared lifestyle or socio-economic position. It is more about an shared activity then a shared identity and thus more attainable. They state is especially a more attainable goal for people in heterogeneous areas, thus when bridging is needed. Instead of encouraging

friendships, they propose to encourage friendly relations.

Wekker (2015) proposes the same ‘light’ sense of bonding in her thesis about a different neighborhood restaurant in Amsterdam North. She notices a ‘binding on fear’ that connects all visitors. Which leads to distancing themselves from ‘ethnic and racial others’, the ones they ‘fear’. This is also due to the normative and institutionalized framework of the neighborhood restaurant. She describes a marginalizing attitude of the management towards the visitors, that feels they need to teach them about ethnic and racial others. This institutionally legitimized moral framework reproduced unequal relations by approaching them as the others, and thus ends up having the opposite effect. Therefore, community builders should be aware of the institutional context in which community building takes place.

All these community building theories are based on the assumption of the modern city. However, the way of life in Amsterdam North is described as very sociable and open, a place where everybody knows each other (Open Society Foundations, 2014). This is in contrast with the way sociologist Wirth (1938) describes a city, which is a place of anonymity. He argues that the relations in a city are superficial and anonymous. His definition is that a city is relatively large and dense. Due to these large numbers it also contains a very heterogeneous population, which cause the absence of intimate personal relations. “Heterogeneity tends to break down rigid social structures and to produce increased mobility, instability, and insecurity” (p. 1). So if the residents feel that the neighborhood is more like a town then a city, this could affect the process of community building.

This theoretical framework raises a lot of questions about firstly the socio-material practices which are taking place, but also the type of community building that takes place in

NeighborMeal North. However, these two aspects cannot be seen separately from each other, as they both shape and affect the other. Therefore, the research question of this thesis is:

How do the social-material practices of NeighborMeal North shape the dynamics of community building of NeighborMeal in the neighborhood?

(24)

23

4. Methodology

This chapter gives an insight into how the research question will be answered. This by discussing the sub-research questions and the methodology of the research, such as the data design, methods and analysis.

4.1 Data Design and Methods

The research design is a case study, which entails a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case. This research design is chosen so that more insight in the socio-material practices taking place at NeighborMeal North and their influence on the community building process can be gathered. In this way, the complexity of the socio-material practices and the particular nature of community building at NeighborMeal North can be given enough attention. A disadvantage of a case study is that the external validity or generalizability of the research is low. This case study lends itself as a exemplifying case, a case to capture the conditions of an commonplace situation and to examine key social processes (Bryman, 2008). This thesis provides a detailed illustration of a community building initiative in a disadvantaged (former white working class)

neighborhood and provides insight in the accompanying socio-material and community building practices.

The research was carried out with a mix of two qualitative methods. The first method was participating observations. Through observing, experiencing and listening to the conversations there was more insight gained into the socio-material practices, the social groups and also the community building aspect of the dinner. The observations showed how the socio-material practices of the shared dinner contribute and block community building of the visitors. Directly after each observation there were field notes made about the evening. In preparation of my research I visited several locations of NeighborMeal; East, South and North. After these

observations I decided to use NeighborMeal North as case-study for my research because it was a newly started project. After a few observations as a visitor, I told the visitors and volunteers that I was doing my thesis research about NeighborMeal North and started to ask them for interviews. Hereby I also kept the research as free as possible from other influences. For example, if I had tried to make contact beforehand with NeighborMeal (North) they could have had suggestions for my research or would have behaved in a way that could have influenced the execution of the research and the results.

All names in this thesis have been changed to safeguard the anonymity of my respondents. A name was added when respondents were mentioned multiple times or the adding of this was important to the context or necessary for clarity. All names that were used in this thesis,

(25)

24 including their ‘role’ within NeighborMeal North and a short description (of gender and age) are listed in the Appendix (Chapter 9.1).

4.2 Operationalization

The main research question: ‘How do the social-material practices of NeighborMeal North shape the dynamics of community building of NeighborMeal in the neighborhood?’ is divided in two sub questions. The first is ‘How are the socio-material practices shaped at NeighborMeal North?’. With this question insight is given into what socio-material practices mean in the context of NeighborMeal North. Looking at socio-material practices such as what kind of materials are used, how they are produced, how they influence and also are interpreted by the social environment. For example the taste of food, but also the table setting created by the volunteers of NeighborMeal North. How are these interpreted and how do these interpretations differ? For instance the possession of different cultural capital can influence how one interprets the way the food tastes. The given examples of socio-materiality, such as the taste of food, are mainly given shape by the volunteers. An important question to ask is thus if these are also influenced by the visitors and/or if they create their own socio-material practices?

During the interviews and observations I noticed and/or discussed the concept of socio-materiality, such as table setting, the taste of food and other materials that were deemed important by the respondents. However, during my interviews the core goal was to build rapport with the respondents, getting them to open up and express themselves in their own way. Therefore, most of my questions were open ended and expressing little control over the informants' response. Usually my first question towards visitors was: 'What do you think of NeighborMeal?'. This first question stirred up the topics or issues that were important to them within the concept of NeighborMeal and often touched upon socio-material practices. However, I also asked about certain aspects of the concept, where I noticed different vision on socio-material practices. Such as when food was discussed.

The second sub question ‘How does the community building at NeighborMeal North take form?’. Community building is defined in this thesis by the terms bridging, bonding, exclusion and amicability. Bridging refers to connecting with people that are not like you, however people can differ in many ways from ethnicity to age. Secondly, the term bonding which means connecting with people that are like you, with whom you share common interests or background. Thirdly, exclusion, which is often associated with (too much) bonding. Exclusion can be intentional but also unintentionally done, where a group does not engage or connect with another group or other individuals. And lastly, amicability is the idea of friendly ties instead of friendship. Where connecting is done not on base of a shared identity but on a shared activity.

(26)

25 During observations, not only the content, but also the way conversations were held were observed. It gave a first insight into how groups formed and related to each other. Especially tensions that amounted into conflicts gave a first glimpse into the community building that took place in NeighborMeal North. During interviews I asked questions revolving the community building aspect of NeighborMeal North. More general questions such as what makes them come to NeighborMeal and what they thought of the atmosphere. But more specific in regard to bridging and bonding, such as if they got acquainted with new or different people and to what extent they already knew the people they had met. And also if there were people with whom they did not get along or felt that there were people not engaged or even excluded (exclusion). Secondly, I asked more about the type of relationships they developed, had they made new friends or moved more towards amicability. Lastly, I asked the respondents that lived in that

neighborhood

if they found NeighborMeal North to be important to themselves or to the neighborhood.

4.3 Participant Observation

The first research observations begun in January 2017 and the last were in June 2017. During the observations I assumed two different roles. I began as a visitor and at a later stage

volunteered in the kitchen a few times. I took on the role as volunteer in a later stage so that visitors would perceive me as neutral as possible and not associate me with a certain group (such as the NeighborMeal North organization). This to prevent the other visitors from adjusting their behavior towards me. The observations in my role as a visitor gave me a first look into the normal code of conduct, such as place seating and conversations that people had. It also allowed me to see how they would treat me as a new visitor and to gain their trust.

I observed in total nine nights as a visitor at NeighborMeal North and three nights as a volunteer at NeighborMeal North. After four months I volunteered for the first time in NeighborMeal North. The first time I volunteered with a resident and one of the property managers. After this first time in the role as a volunteer, I volunteered another two times with different volunteers from the NeighborMeal North organization. During this time I also became more officially part of the volunteers. For example, I was added to the Whatsapp group with all NeighborMeal North volunteers and invited to all their events. It allowed me to come and observe a meeting of the volunteers of NeighborMeal North. These acts gave me firstly more insight into the workings of the organization and allowed me to truly experience how it is to be a volunteer at NeighborMeal North. It deepened my understanding of their perspective. Furthermore, the volunteer meetings provided me with a more intimate observation, where the different volunteers discussed freely

(27)

26 with each other their opinion regarding the latest developments at NeighborMeal North. Lastly, I also visited a lecture, with amongst others the initiator of NeighborMeal, which gave me an insight into the overall aim of NeighborMeal.

4.4 Interviews

After a few weeks of observing and gaining trust of the respondents, I conducted

semi-structured interviews conducted with six of the guests, two initiators of NeighborMeal North, a volunteer of NeighborMeal and the two property managers of the community center and the neighborhood manager8_{from the housing corporation. This amounts to thirteen respondents in} total, although during my observations I also spoke with many other visitors and volunteers. The interviews varied between 45 minutes to 2,5 hours, lasting on average roughly an hour. As I was already familiar with the context and the people of NeighborMeal North, I interviewed the visitors and volunteers that I felt were representative of the group; representative of the different groups that formed at NeighborMeal North and also a few visitors that came to

NeighborMeal on their own without being tied to a group. However, also based on the roles they played during dinner, some were volunteer, some occasionally cook and for instance the

property owners. I thus had a theoretical sampling approach. Meaning that I sampled interviewees until I achieved theoretical saturation on a certain group or perspective on NeighborMeal North. On the basis of the outcome of the interviews in combination with the theoretical framework I would estimate who I needed to interview. There was a movement backwards and forwards between the sampling and theoretical reflection: an iterative approach (Bryman, 2008). Luckily this approach was possible, because all respondents were very open to being interviewed. To such an extent that someone even asked if I wanted to interview them and another thought ‘it was about time’ that I asked her.

I would like to note that the lines between the roles people took were blurry. Whether a respondent was a visitor or property manager could vary during the night by switching between these roles. A good example of this is Lucienne. She is a student, who works and lives as project-coordinator in the

neighborhood

. Sometimes she comes to NeighborMeal as a visitor, sometimes she comes as project-coordinator and sometimes she is a volunteer for NeighborMeal. When I spoke to her she distanced herself from the other visitors in the

interview and talked about NeighborMeal in her role as volunteer, yet not associating herself as truly a part of NeighborMeal. Later in the interview, she described visiting NeighborMeal as part

(28)

27 of her work. When asked what she thought her role was, she said that she did identify the most with the volunteers at NeighborMeal.

4.5 Reflection on my role

Probably due to the before mentioned blurry lines between visitors/volunteers/others and the fact I was a female student in my mid-twenties (like most volunteers), I was often mistaken for one of the volunteers. The assumption that a young female visiting NeighborMeal was a

volunteer was consistent, not only placed on me. This even though I sat and ate next to the other visitors during the first weeks. This assumption also came up during an interview, when a property manager sometimes addressed me personally when he talked about NeighborMeal. I always corrected people when they made this mistake, especially during interviews. I did not experience any concrete actions that made me think visitors acted differently due to this assumption. However, to counter this confusion, I started every interview with making clear that I was not part of NeighborMeal and also did not do my thesis as an assignment for them. All respondents were very open about sharing their experiences and thoughts, both positive and negative. Therefore, I feel that it has not impacted my drawn conclusions. The respondents did not have trouble voicing their opinion, especially the visitors from North (see also Open Society Foundations, 2014).

4.6 Data Analysis

For the data analysis an iterative approach was used, where there is a repetitive interplay between the theory, the collection and the analysis of data. This is why there were some observations already done before submitting the research proposal. The analysis of data was firstly open and based on initial impressions. Then the data was re-explored for possible coherence and reassembling, so called selective coding, which revealed the core categories and help relate it to other categories (Bryman, 2008). The two main codes were ‘socio-material practices’ and ‘community building’. Socio-material practices was divided up into ‘the goal of NeighborMeal’, ‘the Guests’, ‘taste and food’, ‘organization in kitchen’ and ‘gathering of the food’. Community building was divided up into ‘bonding’, ‘exclusion’, ‘bridging’ and ‘types of relations’. These codes led to the structure of the thesis, where some codes were brought together under one chapter, others named differently for clarity or because the codes were intertwined. Two codes that were combined for example were organization in kitchen and gathering of the food. This because they fitted in the similar category of ‘organization’.

Before turning to the results that have come from this data analysis, I would like to add three comments. Firstly, with the translation of the data analysis to the writing down of this thesis, some nuances have been lost. All observations and interviews were in Dutch and thus all quotes

(29)

28 of the respondents have been translated from Dutch to English. Or perhaps as some would say from ‘Amsterdams’ to English. Some Dutch expressions or words (such as ‘gezellig’) were left in this thesis because they were either untranslatable or essential to a deeper understanding. There were however small nuances in the way some respondents spoke that could not be translated for the sake of clarity. Therefore I would like to point out that a lot of the residents had a somewhat distinct way of talking that perhaps distanced them in a way from the

volunteers or visitors from outside of Amsterdam North. This would have been more notable to the reader if the thesis was written in Dutch. Therefore, in the Appendix (Chapter 9.1) there is a small untranslated collection of quotes that were used in this thesis.

Secondly in the results I use the terms ‘Northerners’ and ‘residents’, which can come across as confusing as they could be used to identify the same group. With residents I mean all the visitors that are from the neighborhood in Amsterdam North where NeighborMeal North is situated. With Northerners I mean people from Amsterdam North. The last term was mostly initiated by my respondents, however often meaning to refer to the group of residents that visited. When they use this term I copy their use of this term, because I do not want to assume they are actually only referring to this smaller group of residents instead of all Northerners who visited the meal.

Thirdly, although I have interviewed thirteen respondents in total, there are some who are quoted more often than others. It may seems that some may have disproportionate influence towards this thesis. However, this is due to the clarity or conciseness with how they spoke which made their quotes more suitable. The used quotes are representative of the opinions expressed by others when interviewing them or talking to them during the observations.

(30)

29

5. Visions on NeighborMeal

5.1 The start of NeighborMeal North

This is the first section of the research results, which gives an insight to how NeighborMeal North is founded. NeighborMeal North is part of a bigger organization that has six different venues. Every venue has its own board that organize all the practical matters, but they all work with the same basic concept and regulations. Volunteers pick up food from restaurants,

supermarkets and other businesses that would otherwise throw the food away. This food then gets repurposed into a free meal in a local community center. This is for the purpose of reducing food waste and serving as an activity to bring people together. NeighborMeal in Amsterdam North was founded by seven students. The students had to do a project, where the assignment was to counter social polarization in society. Elise described the start of NeighborMeal North.

‘We thought it would be fun to do something with food, that became clear from our initial ideas. It was an assignment from Academie van de Stad9_{and a social housing cooperation.}

So then we had a conversation with the cooperation. Uhm, so our assignment was to counter the polarization in society, this in combination with involving ‘status-holders’10_.

Then we had a conversation with them about where that would be the biggest problem and we ended up in North and actually very specifically in this neighborhood’ ... ‘then we came in contact with NeighborMeal and that was actually quite a coincidence. They already had three venues in Amsterdam, but not one in North’.

They looked around which venues were appropriate in the neighborhood and had different options. Anne, one of the property-managers of the community center was enthusiastic when they approached her venue.

‘I tried my very best to get them here. Because they had a second option which was House of the Neighborhood. I thought, no we don’t want that, they have to come here. So talked and talked and in the end they chose it here. So yeah, super proud of course’.

When the students started NeighborMeal North they reached out to several status-holders and actively invited them as guests. However, this quickly proved to be a group that was hard to reach and did not keep coming regularly. This is due to various reasons, such as being too busy with following their Dutch classes. A few weeks after the first meal, the semester of the program was finished and three of the students remained to keep organizing NeighborMeal North. The other four of the seven students went to travel, do an internship or had other responsibilities

9

Academie van de Stad is a foundation that connects students and the city, by developing projects for students in collaborations with a third party.

(31)

30 which made them (temporarily) unable to continue volunteering for NeighborMeal. This

decrease of volunteers and the difficulty of reaching their initial goal led to a shift in their priorities according to Caroline.

‘So first we were really busy with involving status-holders, because that was the

assignment. We did pursue this initially, but at a certain point we thought well: it is also one of the core values of NeighborMeal to repurpose wasted food. Everything that comes along with that, that is great, but more like a nice advantage. That’s why we first wanted to focus on that we could properly get the food and had a solid operation’.

So the primary goal of NeighborMeal shifted towards the combating of food waste, or more accurately, to the smoothly running of the organization itself and getting more volunteers to divide the workload. The research for this thesis began when the assignment had already ended and only Joni, Elise and Caroline were in the board of NeighborMeal and the shift in focus had already occurred. Elise stressed how the logistical side of NeighborMeal North required time.

‘It just takes a lot of time to make sure all the logistic and practical are in order. I think we could focus more on these kinds of things [the social aspect of NeighborMeal] when there are more people on a structural level’ … ‘ [and now] you just focus more on the things that are

really necessary’.

The goal or priority of NeighborMeal being combating food waste was often not one of the main concerns or reasons for visitors to come join the meals. The visitors were aware that the food was picked up from other locations and otherwise thrown away. However, their attitude was often indifferent towards combating food waste this way. Or as Carona, a resident, responded to a question about what she thought of the aim of NeighborMeal to combat food waste: ‘I don’t

think that it is a problem, as long the food tastes good it is fine by me’.

This quote describes the general attitude towards the food-waste aspect of the visitors. Most visitors find either the food or the atmosphere a priority and do not think that much about the aspect of combating food-waste. For them it is important that the food tastes good and that it is free, and/or that there is a good atmosphere and friendly people. When asked why they

attended the meals, none of the guests mentioned battling food waste in their (initial) answers. This in contrast with the volunteers, especially the volunteers that did not initiate NeighborMeal North, but joined later on. They see combating food-waste as an essential part of the initiative. However, that the focus of NeighborMeal North is currently on the organization of the meal itself and not on the social aspect does not go by unnoticed by some of the visitors and stakeholders. As the area manager of the cooperation stated.

Food for thought : socio-material practices and community building at an Amsterdam North community centre

Food for thought

Socio-material practices and Community Building at an Amsterdam North

Community Centre

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1 NeighborMeal

1.2 Theoretical and Societal Relevance

1.3 Reading Guide

2. Research Context

2.1 Dutch Neighborhood Policies

2.2 Community Building Activities

2.3 Social History of Amsterdam North

2.4 Amsterdam North Identity

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 The socio-material practice of sharing a meal

3.2 Community building

4. Methodology

4.1 Data Design and Methods

4.2 Operationalization

neighborhood

4.3 Participant Observation

4.4 Interviews

neighborhood

4.5 Reflection on my role

4.6 Data Analysis

5. Visions on NeighborMeal

5.1 The start of NeighborMeal North