Plagiarism statement:
I declare that this thesis is a product of my own work. I have identified all material in this text which is not my own work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgement. When I have quoted from the work of others I have included the source in the references.
1 page summary as required by the RMSS program:
In this thesis I will explore the research question: How is Dutchness constructed and/or reconstructed through interactions between residents at Startblok Elzenhagen?
Argument:
At first sight, sexuality and secularism might not directly seem to relate to the research question. However, the historically constructed narratives are cornerstones of the larger societal tendencies that construct the Dutch self image as modern, progressive, and tolerant (Mepschen et al., 2010). Sexual freedom has become synonymous with secularism (Scott, 2018). This process can be called the ‘sexualization of citizenship’ meaning that the imaginary subject of the modern individualist is pitted against subjectivities embedded in community, family and tradition (Butler, 2008; Puar, 2007). Within this discourse Muslims are framed as non-modern subjects and gay and lesbian emancipation are deployed to construct and solidify these narratives (Mepschen et al, 2010). At Startblok Elzenhagen we see similar tendencies. First, I have explored the encouragement of sexuality. Next, I have discussed how public spaces are kept secular. All in all, arguing that this fits within the narrative of the Netherlands as a modern, progressive and tolerant nation. Therefore, Dutchness should be seen within this discourse.
Next, the nativist and culturalist discourses that are present in the Netherlands are explored. I have analyzed how these discourses have an influence on the practices and exchanges between residents at Startblok Elzenhagen. Showing that the nativist discourse excludes people and labels them as ‘racial’ and ‘cultural’ others (Balkenhol et al, 2016; Essed and Trienekens, 2008; Kešić and Duyvendak, 2019). These Othering practices that racializes and culturalizes people as outsiders, pushing them to ‘outside society’ (Schinkel, 2013). Thereby, nativism could in part function as an explanation of the exclusionary practices from Dutchness. Next, the concept of essentialist-historicism that constructs Dutchness and the Netherlands as progressive and a progressive nation is explored. I will argue that an hierarchical understanding of a Global North-South divide is recreated by residents (Leersen 2009; Kešić and Duyvendak, 2016). Thereby adding to the understanding of Dutchness in these terms (Kešić and Duyvendak, 2016).
Guided by the concepts of nativism and culturalization practices, I have tried to argue that these discourses find their way into the local context, everyday interactions at Startblok Elzenhagen. Although the dominant culturalist discourse creates a narrative of ‘rootedness’ in a country of origin which is captured in ‘the sedentary bias’ (Malkki, 1995) some of the residents at Startblok Elzenhagen have constructed a ‘non-sedentary’ approach to home through the creation of interpersonal relations that feel like family. I have analyzed the exchanges of practices and creation of new norms of engagement through a functional constructivist lens (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). In the interactions of residents at Startblok Elzenhagen a functional constructivist view can be found in local, everyday interactions and hence into the lives of some of the residents at Startblok Elzenhagen, which implies that there might be a more inclusive and open view on culture on a local level (Ibid., 2016).
The Construction of Dutchness:
practices and interactions within Startblok
Elzenhagen, a housing project in Amsterdam
North
Photo from personal collection - taken at Startblok Elzenhagen
Student: Henriette Hoogervorst Program: Research Master Social Sciences
UvA ID number: 10431470 Department: GSSS
Supervisor: dhr. dr. M. (Martijn) Dekker Submission date: 17-08-2020
Table of content
1) Introduction 4
The
Netherlands
& Dutchness 5Culture & the Netherlands 5
Dutchness and normative conceptions of Integration 6
Project Elzenhagen 6
Research question 7
Methods 7
Location 9
Language and translations 9
Reflections 10
2) Theoretical Inspirations/framework 11
Sexuality and Religion and the Dutch Self-Image as Progressive and Modern Subjects 11 Culturalization of Citizenship: constructivist, restorative, affective, functional 13
Nativism, Culturalism, and (National) Belonging 15
Home, Rootedness & the Sedarary bias 18
3) Startblok Elzenhagen; Contextualization 20
Vignette - entering Startblok Elzenhagen 20
The project 23
Internal structure 23
Promotion & experiences 24
‘Structural incidents’ 24
Summary & Conclusion 25
4) Sexuality and Secularism 26
Secularism and Religion 26
Sexuality 29
Public versus private 31
Discussion on sexuality and secularism 32
Summary & Conclusion 32
5) Dutchness; the influence of nativist and culturalist discourses on the everyday interactions of residents in
Startblok Elzenhagen 33
“Very Dutch”; the self-image of a modern progressive nation 35
‘Becoming Ibrahim’: from Syrian to Dutch 37
Summary & conclusion 39
6) Local practices; the ‘non-sedentary’ approach and a functional constructivist view 40
“One big family” - the creation of home 40
A functional constructivist view on culturalization of citizenship? 42
Summary & Conclusion 45
7) Conclusion 45
1) Introduction
“A return to our norms and traditions is crucial for the revival of the Dutch society.” That was the core campaign message that the CDA1 put forward during the 2017 Dutch national elections (NOS, 2017). In an
interview party leader Buma explained that he wanted to restore ‘our [Dutch] norms and values’. In his quest for the search for ‘fatherland love’, as Buma called it, he mentioned that there are ‘certain symbols’ which ‘our [the Dutch] society stands for.’ Symbols that represent affection for ‘the fatherland’, certain traditions such as devotion to the Dutch crown and monarchy (Telegraaf, 2017). The suggested policy: students should be taught to sing the national anthem every morning, which will acquire a new form of respect for the Dutch crown (NOS, 2017). The CDA’s mission to restore ‘our Dutch norms and values’ is part of a larger pursuit of grappling with the ever changing ‘Dutch identity’. The fear of a loss of and the necessity to return to an established Dutchness was not only present in the CDA’s campaign message. A quest for the protection of this identity was visible in the PVV’s2 racialized anti-Islam rhetoric and in the call from the newly established party FvD3 to
a return to pre-modern values. It is a process that has been developing over time and can be rooted in a ‘clash of civilization’ rhetoric where the Western civilization needs to be protected from the barbaric outsiders (Huntington, 1993; Scott, 2018). The CDA attempted to make Dutchness tangible in their rhetoric and desire for this particular policy.
This rhetoric of ‘protecting our culture’ is not only part of the political debate on Dutchness. It fits into a larger process of polarization, citizenship and belonging (Tonkens & Duyvendak, 2016). Not only is it highly relevant in Dutch society, but the authors of the book The Culturalization of Citizenship, Belonging and Polarization in a Globalizing World argue that it is a global trend that finds particular strands in different local contexts throughout the world. (Duyvendak et al., 2016). In short the ideas of ‘protecting our culture’ falls within the context of the culturalization of citizenship; meaning that citizenship is seen as more than merely legal rights, but also means being recognized, symbolically and emotionally as co-citizens (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). It is tied to the idea of ‘feeling rules’ that essentially tie into ideas of belonging and feeling at home in a society (Hochshild, 2003; Duyvendak, 2017).
Due to this trend it has become more challenging for immigrants to obtain the legal status of citizenship (because of lengthy citizenship tests). Not only has the legal aspect of citizenship become less accessible, it is also much more difficult to access the symbolic national belonging acquainted with citizenship. This is often denied by the native majorities. Not only to newcomers, but also to second or third generations born in the country. In Western Europe this is in particular the case with non-western immigrants (Uitermark et al., 2014).
1Christen-Democratisch Appèl (abbreviated: CDA) is a ‘Christen Democratic’ political party in the Netherlands. 2Partij voor de Vrijheid (abbreviated: PVV) is a right-wing political party in the Netherlands with a strong anti-Islam agenda.
Understanding these relations and the concept of how citizenship is understood and created is of importance for societies and the people in them. Gaining an understanding of how the culturalization of citizenship and belonging play their part could provide useful insights. This is not only useful for academic insights, but might also form a basis for potential policies. In particular in the realm of immigration, because it is often offset against a threat, an outsider, an ‘Other’ (Mepschen, 2016).
The Netherlands & Dutchness
The situation in the Netherlands has often been referred to as a radical case of this trend which is shared in many Western European countries (Duyvendak and Tonkens, 2016). It is an example of European anxieties about cultural homogeneity and national cohesion, where culturalized and racialized conceptions of the nation and its Others are at the center (Mepschen, 2016). This means that the access to full citizenship is tied to the embrace of ‘modern’ Western values, particularly in regard to gender and sexuality (Mepschen et al., 2010; Duyvendak and Tonkens, 2016). ‘Dutchness’ is in part citizenship, not in legal terms but rather in terms of what it has come to mean in terms of belonging and national identity (Van Reekum, 2014). This raises the question of how Dutchness is constructed. Van Reekum provides insight into the didactic creation of Dutchness and argues that it is created and traced back to a historical process. Hence, it is captured by means of narratives, retellings and actions (2014).
Culture & the Netherlands
The Dutch anxieties about cultural homogeneity and national cohesion are often framed as a form of protectionism. The idea of protectionism towards a culture is based on a static and essentialized understanding of what ‘culture’ means. This idea of culture is intertwined with ideas of citizenship, which have culture at its core (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). However, cultures in their essence are not static; they evolve and are ever changing. The changing nature of cultures is due to the “robust criticism from their members” (Nussbaum, 2001, p.48). When talking about immigrant cultures, neither the immigrant cultures nor cultures of receiving societies should be seen as a homogeneous whole. They are filled with disputes and disagreement (Ibid, 2001). Immigration changes both the cultures of receiving societies as well as those of immigrant groups. It is important to note that that is not only because of the differences between them but also, especially, because of confrontations, disagreements and power struggles within these groups (Ibid, 2001.).
Nevertheless, according to Duyvendak and Tonkens this is far from the dominant understanding of culture in many countries today (2016). This has implications for the culturalization of citizenship, which is closely tied to and understood in terms of culture. Meaning that being (accepted as) a citizen is thus less defined in terms of political, civic, and/or social rights, and more in terms of adherence to norms and practices (Geschiere, 2009; Hurenkamp et al. 2012). This has a significant impact on feelings of belonging, in particular
on non-western immigrants or children of immigrants (Duyvendak, 2017). Regardless of the dominant understanding of culture, the definition given by Nussbaum provides a frame for research. It is an ever changing process of creating and recreating through members of cultural communities (Nussbaum, 2001).
Dutchness and normative conceptions of Integration
This leads to what Stuart Hall defines as the ‘multicultural question’ and calls one of the most important questions of our time (2000). This question is as follows: how can people with different cultural traditions and backgrounds live together in a way that is not confined to fixating and naturalising the differences between people or assimilation? (Hall, 2000). Ager and Strang have analyzed the literature on the concept of integration and shown that it is both an analytical as well as a normative concept that is used in political debates and everyday rhetoric (2008). In the Netherlands the discussion about integration has normative connections which have, since the nineties, mostly been concerned with cultural aspects (Duyvendak, 2017). Nevertheless, in recent years the discourse in the Netherlands on integration has shifted. A crucial point in this differentiation is the implementation of the 2006 policy on integration. This policy introduced a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. The ceremony puts focus on the manners, duties, norms and values that come with being a Dutch citizen (Verkaaik, 2010). The ritual can be recognized as a venture to redefine the terms of autochthony and belonging in Dutch culture (Geschiere, 2009). Thus, part of the normative ideas of integration are now defined in an understanding of the norms and values of being Dutch.
How the Dutch negotiate their culture and cultural differences has been impacted through practices and discourses. Through ethnographic research Verkaaik shows that this change in practices has normalized a nationalist trajectory. The ideas of tolerance that previously characterized Dutch society have now been supplemented by a nationalist trajectory (2010). According to Duyvendak, integration policy in the Netherlands is strongly focused on emotional identification with the country (2017). However, research shows that the contrary is eventually achieved. Assimilation and emancipating norms and values did not necessarily lead to the feelings of home for ‘native’ Dutch as for newcomers (Duyvendak, 2017). Identifying and feeling Dutch are self-evident identity markers for some young Dutch citizens. However, this is not always the case. For young Dutch citizens who have foreign roots, feelings of exclusion are part of the reason why they feel excluded from experiencing Dutchness. They do not feel the room to experience themselves as Dutch, because they are not seen as Dutch by others (van der Welle, 2011).
Project Elzenhagen
A place where one would expect these narratives to take shape is in a location where people from different national backgrounds, different cultural backgrounds, and beliefs come together. In the Netherlands, in Amsterdam to be more precise, there is a project that provides housing for both Dutch nationals and status
holders. Status holders are people who are granted a temporary asylum residence permit by the IND4. The
concept of this housing project is based on the normative conception of integration; namely, on the idea that ‘mixing groups’ will ‘stimulate the integration process’ (Windzio & Bicer, 2013). The housing project places importance on the interaction between the newcomers and Dutch citizens. The structure is based on the belief that an excess amount of contact between refugees and the host community will speed up the integration process (Ibid, 2013). These statements and assumptions are rather ambiguous and raise questions on whose integration process is intended. Nevertheless, this space provides a unique opportunity to analyze interactions between residents from different national and cultural backgrounds. Information gained from the website provides the idea that it is to welcome and ‘integrate’ people into the Netherlands, and hence become familiar with ‘Dutchness’. But what does this mean in practice? And how do interactions between residents shape these ideas? This project provides a unique opportunity to look into the creation of a community that is supposed to be based on this normative idea of integration. The question of how this community is formed and on whose terms might arise. There seems to be an underlying sense that Dutchness can be created when newcomers and Dutch nationals live and interact within this housing project.
Research question
This has led to the following research question: How is Dutchness constructed and/or reconstructed through interactions between Dutch nationals and status holders in a housing project in Amsterdam North?
As a citizen of the Netherlands and as someone who has never had to question her own position in society, I am motivated to gain a better understanding of how a national identity and belonging are constructed. From a young age I have been aware that this is not naturally the case for everyone, as half of my primary school class lived with their families in the local asylum center, under the ever present threat of being uprooted and sent back to the country of their parents. At first this awareness translated into strong feelings of injustice. However, being able to attend university these feelings have been complemented with questions and a drive to understand the processes at stake. My fieldwork and thesis are an attempt to gain a better understanding of how Dutchness is constructed. It is part of a larger personal quest; an attempt to attain an understanding of my role and position within these dynamics as a Dutch citizen.
Methods
I used a variety of qualitative methods in order to analyze my research question and gain an understanding of how Dutchness is constructed and/or reconstructed through interactions between Dutch citizens and status
holders in the housing project in Amsterdam North, in particular participant observations and semi-structured interviews. Participant observations are broader than the observation of participants and also entail data through interviews, settings, and documents (Bryman, 2016). A journal was kept with observations and notations of places, smells, interactions, thoughts of the researcher, and other observations. The observations took place on site and online. Online observations took place on the website of Startblok Elzenhagen, the Facebook page for residents, the public Facebook page of Startblok Elzenhagen, and WhatsApp groups. Some of these groups were closed off, but I gained insights because the content was revealed during or after interviews by interlocutors. Observations provided the opportunity to observe the location and interactions between residents of Startblok Elzenhagen. If something remarkable in the observations stood out I would bring it up in the interviews.
The conducted interviews were semi-structured, which meant that some themes and topics were determined beforehand. This was guided by the literature from the proposal of the student. The semi-structured interviews leave room for the participants to add new insights and value to aspects that they deem important and allow for follow up questions into topics that the interlocutors bring up. Later on the set of interview themes were also complimented with insights from the observations that were made during the fieldwork. This was done in order to understand aspects that remained unclear and/or to deepen the knowledge of the observation.
In total, seventeen interlocutors were formally interviewed: ten Dutch nationals and seven status holders. These interviews varied in duration from 28 minutes to 3 hours and 11 minutes. However, most of the interviews took around forty five minutes to an hour. Two interviews were double interviews. In both instances these interviews were planned separately but the participants were familiar with each other and the timing lent itself to a double interview. In one instance, one of the interlocutors insisted on a double interview beforehand. In the other case it was a concurrence of events. On my way to the interview I ran into someone who I had scheduled to interview the next day. She was on her way to my interlocutor to ask if he wanted to have tea with her. When I told her that I was on my way to conduct an interview with him, she suggested interviewing both of them at the same time. At first I was hesitant, but I decided to do it and I can safely say that it was a valuable coincidence. These double interviews gave a new dynamic to the interviews, because, at times, the interlocutors were discussing amongst themselves what they thought of a certain theme or event. This gave me insights that I would not have gained had I conducted four separate interviews. Both double interviews were between Dutch nationals and status holders and it gave me a chance to observe not only the themes but also their relational dynamics. These interviews lasted 2,5 hours and 3 hours and 11 minutes respectively.
All the interlocutors were sourced through a convenience sample, which meant that they were people that I met during my participant observations, at the language cafe or other events. From this sample I used the snowball method to ask my interlocutors for other contacts. In the first one and a half months I conducted mostly observations. In part these observations informed my topic list for the interviews. However, it also
provided time to build and form personal relationships with some of the interlocutors in order for them to willingly take time out of their day and sit down with me for an interview. It helped to gain their trust and feel more comfortable discussing personal matters. In the final part of my fieldwork I combined participant observations with semi-structured interviews. From the beginning of my fieldwork I have been very open to my interlocutors about my intentions and the fact that I was conducting research for my master thesis.
At the start of an interview I would run through a couple of aspects. First, I would ask permission to record the interview. Hence, all interviews have been recorded and these recordings are in the possession of the student. Next, they were informed that they could retract and reformulate statements at any time during or after the interview. From the start my interlocutors were informed that the data would be handled with care, which means that their names are anonymized and the raw data will not be handed over to third parties. Hence, the names of participants have been anonymized throughout my thesis to protect the privacy of my interlocutors. After the interviews were conducted the recordings were transcribed. Whilst transcribing the interviews some interactions remained somewhat unclear. On two occasions the interlocutors were contacted again and they clarified the given information. This was done over WhatsApp and via a phone call.
Location
As described before the Netherlands is seen as an exemplary place in Western Europe concerning the culturalization of citizenship (Duyvendak and Tonkens, 2016). The location in Amsterdam North was not only
convenient and open to outsiders but also a case with clear ‘boundaries’ to conduct fieldwork. Meaning that there is one housing project to observe. This is, of course, not a stand alone project, but is related to the neighborhood and society at large. Due to the nature of the housing project the residents were aware or involved with activities to better understand the Netherlands and each other which provided a clear case to study how Dutchness was created.
Language and translations
The interviews have been conducted in English and Dutch. English was neither the native language of the interlocutors nor the student. Therefore, some of the quotes that are in this thesis might contain grammatical errors. Finding a balance between keeping true to one’s words and readability I have, at times, made adaptations in some of the original English quotes. The words that have been changed or added will always be addressed with [ ] brackets. Therefore, the reader will be able to see if a quote is changed for purposes of readability. Many of these changes are small changes to the grammatical structure or slight adaptations of words. The unedited quotes are in possession of the student and can be seen upon request. The other language in which the interviews have been conducted is Dutch. The quotes used in this thesis have been translated by me, the student,
to the best of my ability. The original Dutch quotes are in possession of the student and can also be viewed upon request.
Reflections
As described before I collected the (interview) data through convenience sample and snowball sampling. I gathered many of my (initial) informants through public events at Startblok Elzenhagen that were open to outsiders, like myself. By conducting research in this way the data is limited to a part of the network of Startblok Elzenhagen. Namely, to people who are active and attend community events. Therefore, it needs to be noted that it is acknowledged that the observations and inductions made in this thesis might not be representative for the entirety of Startblok Elzenhagen. The conducted research is this thesis is therefore written from an explorative stance.
Reflecting back on my fieldwork I also acknowledge that when considering intersectionality within my work I could have paid more attention to some aspects whilst conducting my fieldwork, in particular class. Intersectionality as coined by Crenshaw (1991) means recognizing the intersections between the identities of people who experience societal disadvantages or privileges or both on the basis of their social position. Aspects such as race, gender, but also class. Looking at the collected data I realize that I have unintentionally collected more data on some aspects rather than others. My data is much more focused on ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexuality, which I would argue is in part a product of the literature about the Netherlands that I read beforehand. A recommendation for future research would thus be to actively explore class as a concept at Startblok Elzenhagen.
Another important aspect that needs to be acknowledged is my positionality within the research project. As a Dutch, white, young female I am in some aspects part of my research subject. Hence, my position within the research is at times also used as a piece of data. Inspired by Donna Harraway’s situated knowledges (1988); I have understood that through my positionality I have been able to access certain aspects that someone with other vantage points might not have been able to. Naturally this statement can also be reversed and acknowledged that someone who comes from another position might gain different pieces of information. This should not be seen as a limitation, but rather as a particular point of entry into a larger puzzle.
2) Theoretical Inspirations/framework
The following review will analyze important theories and concepts within the literature related to the construction of Dutchness. In order to explore the research question: How is Dutchness constructed and/or reconstructed through interactions between Dutch nationals and status holders in a housing project in Amsterdam North? In this review I will elaborate on the scholarship concerned with the historically constructed discourse of secularism and sexuality which plays a role in the self-image of the Dutch. These concepts operate against the backdrop of the world wide culturalization of citizenship that finds a particular strand in Europe (Geschiere, 2009; Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). Which, as discussed in the introduction, finds a distinct expression in the Netherlands (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). Therefore, I will briefly discuss a framework of the different strands of culturalization of citizenship. This provides a frame to discuss the culturalist and nativist discourses operative in the Netherlands. These discourses create boundaries of national belonging from which people can be excluded. Finally, I will briefly elaborate on a different approach to understand belonging than is created by the culturalist and nativist discourses. As Scott acknowledges, “the power of discourse matters because of its influence on politicians and the media, as well as on ordinary people” (2018, p. 182).
Sexuality and Religion and the Dutch Self-Image as Progressive and Modern Subjects
At first sight, the research question might not directly seem to relate to sexuality and secularism. However, as I will discuss these are significant concepts within the construction of the Dutch self-image. They play a role in the conception of the Netherlands as a tolerant and progressive nation. Sexual liberation is seen as the ‘avatar of freedom and modernity’, in which lesbian and gay emancipation is mobilized to portray the image of the progressive modern Dutch self (Butler, 2008, p.8; in Mepschen et al., 2010). In other words tropes of sexual freedom are seen as inherently Dutch (Van der Veer, 2006). These tropes are historically constructed and are framed in terms of modernity versus tradition, tolerance versus fundamentalism, and individualism versus collectivism. This imagery is used to construct the idea of the modern self that is positioned against an imagined traditionalist Other (Mepschen et al., 2010; Scott, 2018). Within this discourse the Netherlands is constructed as a secular, individualist, and progressive nation and is positioned against the ‘traditionalist’ Islam (Mepschen et al., 2010). In this discourse Muslims are othered and are positioned within a culturalist frame as the opposite of, and a threat to the individual and progressive nation (Balkenhol et al., 2016; Mepschen et al., 2010; Scott, 2018). Scott captures the dynamics well in the term sexularism, meaning a particular form of secularism that manifests in Western Europe in the intimate spheres of sexuality religion (2018). Thus, within the constructions of the Netherlands as a free liberal and progressive nation sexual politics play a prominent role (Mepschen et al, 2010, Balkenhol et al., 2016).
The concept of sex and sexuality are thus intertwined with the discourse on secularism (Scott, 2018). These historically constructed notions have been explored by scholars. In her book The Politics of Secularism in International Relations Hurd explores this tension between what she calls the laicism and Judeo-Christian perspectives of secularism and the historical context (2008). Hurd argues that politics and religion are no fixed concepts, but rather historically and socially constructed. Thereby presenting secularism as a historically flexible category. She explores the unquestioned acceptance of secularism as the division between religion and politics. Judeo-Christian foundations provided the morals and values for the Western secular democracies. Hurd argues that there are two strings of approaches to secularism in Europe and the United States (2008).
The tradition in which the Netherlands falls is that of predominantly protestant states. In this tradition secularism is proposed to be the right of individual conscience. It is presented as a liberal opposition not only to Catholicism, but also to the repressive religions of ‘the Orient’ (Hurd, 2008). ‘The Orient’ is marked as irrational, primitive, but also sensual and feminine, compared to the rational, progressive and masculine ‘West’ (Said, 1978). The Western liberal democracy thus represents the preferred individual choice. This led eventually to linking sexual freedom to democracy (Hurd, 2008). Scott also discusses that sexual freedom was an important element of individual democratic rights (2018). (Sexual) individualism laid the framework for the further demonization of the Islamic Other. “The notion of a ‘clash of civilizations’ came into wide international prominence […] ascribing totalitarianism and sexual repression to Islam and equating democracy with Christian values and the rights of women” (Scott, 2018, p.156, original emphasis). In her 2018 book Sex and Secularism Scott has shown that the contrast between East and West is a feature of secularism and has been present from its earliest formations (Ibid., 2018).
This brings up the public/private distinction that Scott acknowledges. Religion was at some point ascribed to women, and linked to the place of home, alongside ideas of tradition, whereas men were ascribed to the public region which was linked to rationality (Ibid., 2018). In the twenty-first century this divide disappeared when women in the West were depicted as sexually liberated. According to Scott this became a measurement for equality brought by secularism (2018). This falls under this is the concept of sexual democracy; meaning a greater openness to a diverse range of sexual practices that sometimes, especially in an historically Protestant nation as the Netherlands, are met with an anti-religious stance. Commonly this is view also contains ‘a liberal conception of freedom as autonomous, self-willed, individual action (Ibid., 2018 p. 181)
The Netherlands is currently perceived as one of the most secular countries in Western Europe. However, this was not always the case. Up until the 1960’s the Netherlands used to be very religious. However, large segments of Dutch society started supporting liberal policies and thereby rejected moral traditionality. This was a turning point in the acceptance of homosexuality (Mepschen et al., 2010). Which meant that it also led to the perception of homophobia as alien to the secular Dutch traditions of tolerance (Duyvendak et al., 2016). Although, this is ‘at least contested in Dutch circles’ (Wekker, 2016, p.7), it is in line with what was earlier described as the Dutch self-image of a tolerant and open society as sexual freedom is seen as a beacon of the
modern nation (Balkenhol et al., 2016; Mepschen et al., 2010; Mepschen, 2017). Scholars have argued that the fact that the Netherlands is able to have ‘normalized’ homosexuality is because, opposed to many other Western countries, it has been stripped from its divergent and radical character (Duyvendak, 1996). This is in part due to ‘new homonormativity’, meaning that lesbian and gay identities are no longer seen as a threat but rather as an underlayment of heteronormative assumptions and structures (Duggan, 2002).
Although some of these papers are published over a decade ago these tendencies are still relevant today, as is shown in the relatively new book The Culturalization of Citizenship: Belonging and Polarization in a Globalizing World written by Duyvendak et al. (2016). But also in recent work of Mepschen (2016; 2017). Scott has called this dynamic the ‘Muslim Question’; meaning that the centrality of terminology of emancipation and equality addresses the place of Muslims in secular countries of Western Europe and is reminiscent of the nineteenth-century “Jewish Question” (Scott, 2018). Puar has argued that LGBTIQ rights have been used to recast as an operative technology in the making and disciplining of Muslim Others (Puar, 2007). Homophobia is projected as something outside of the culture. In the Netherlands this is done by placing homophobic cases among Muslims in the spotlight, and thereby presenting it as the embodiment of the Muslim Other (Mepschen et al., 2010). Combined with orientalist narratives it is used to highlight the supremacy of the secular modernity that defines Europe. In the Netherlands this means that homophobia is presented as foreign to Dutch culture (Mepeschen et al., 2010).
Hence, these historically constructed narratives play a role; they operate in terms of sexual politics that advances the ‘progressive’ agenda and demonizes Muslims (Mepschen e al., 2010). These dynamics bring forth the constructed self-image of the Dutch as liberal, progressive. Therefore, the first empirical chapter will focus on the sexual politics that are operative in the Netherlands (Mepschen et al., 2010; Mepschen, 2016). I will explore how sexuality and secularism play a role at Startblok Elzenhagen.
Culturalization of Citizenship: constructivist, restorative, affective, functional
In order to provide a framework for analysis Tonkens and Duyvendak recognize four types of the culturalization of citizenship along two axes (2016). The first two views of culture are based on two ways of approaching the issue of citizenship (Duyvendak et al., 2009). Namely, a restorative and a constructivist view on culture (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). Restorative means the view that culture is a given. There is no room for discussion or disagreement between or amongst insiders and outsiders (Ibid., 2016). The constructivist view poses a contrasting idea of culture. In this sense culture is perceived as a process in the making. It is built on changes and traditions between insiders and with outsiders. The result is a cultural mixing that comes from confrontations with outsiders and internal power struggles (Ibid, 2016). According to Baumann it is often the case that people who interact in a multicultural context combine both conceptions of culture. Meaning that they view culture as an ongoing changing construction as well as an essential given (1996).
Tonkens and Duyvendak recognize that culture is mobilized to facilitate citizenship. In this service they distinguish two other dimensions; functional and affective (2016). The functional dimension of culture means that people are able to speak the dominant language of the country in public, have knowledge of the traditions as well as the histories of the country, but also are continuous of political conventions, the education system and labor market (Ibid, 2016). The affective dimension of culture means that people have an emotional attachment to culture (Ibid, 2016). These are defined as “feeling rules” by Hochschild; these rules direct how citizens are supposed to feel and act (2003). However, because feelings cannot simply be identified by others actions are seen as symbols for these feelings (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016).
All in all, Tonkens and Duyvendak recognize four types of culturalization of citizenship along two axes; the restorative affective conception of the culturalization of citizenship, the constructivist affective conception of the culturalization of citizenship, the restorative functional understanding of the naturalization citizenship, and the constructivist functional understanding of the culturalization of citizenship (see table 1) (2016). Thus according to Tonkens and Duvyendak the functional restorative view is based on the idea that citizens must adopt certain core values and put them into practice. The affective restorative culturalization of citizenship places emphasis on the need for loyalty to the nation state. With the result that immigrants who do not feel at home in the country of residence should ‘go home’. The affective constructivist view on the culturalization of citizenship is mostly concerned with the examination of feelings, and how these feelings culminate in social participation. It recognized the importance of feelings at home and belonging for all citizens. The functional-constructivist view sees culture as something that is created through democratic processes and everyday exchanges. This conception acknowledges cultural clashes but understands it in a process of the politics of everyday life and to the learning to co-exist as citizens (2016).
Table 1
note. Reprinted from “Introduction: The culturalization of citizenship” In The culturalization of citizenship, by Tonkens, E. & Duyvendak, J. W. (2016), p.7, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
It needs to be noted that all these conceptions can exist next to one another. As Tonkens and Duyvendak share they should not be upheld as solid categories but merely function as a framework for analysis (2016). This relates to what prominent social scientists have argued that we live in a time marked by fluidity and mobility (Bauman, 2000; Urry, 2000). Yet, this time is also marked by the re-emergence of solid categories (Ghorashi, 2019). These categories are characterized by the culturalist discourses and sentiments that place emphasis on cultural differences (Ghorashi, 2019). That brings me to the concept of essentialist-historicism.
It ties to the earlier described construction of the Dutch self-image and the Netherlands as progressive and a progressive nation (Mepschen et al., 2010; Kešić and Duyvendak, 2016). Through an essentialist-historicism lens the historicized image of Dutchness of progressive, tolerant nation. According to Kešić and Duyvendak: “The centrality of progress in the historicized image of Dutchness not only serves as a framework to understand Dutchness in the present, but as a political tool for the progressive appropriation of national identity” (2016). Linked to this essentialized historicized image is the discussion on a Global North South divide where cultural polarization takes place (especially on issues of gender and sexuality) (Kešić and Duyvendak, 2016). The Global North South divide signifies the constructed opposition, in which the Global North is seen as being sober, cool, egalitarian, and individual, whereas the Global South is seen as passionate, sensual, emotional, and untrustworthy (Leessen, 2009). Within these characteristics the Global North is described as a superior culture to the ‘backward’ cultures that are often labeled as ‘traditional’, ‘undemocratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ (Leerssen, 2009, Duyvendak, 2011). This also ties into earlier discussed ideas of Orientalism developed by Edward Said (1978).
In the final chapter I will use the concept of constructivist functional view of citizenship to analyze the interactions that are operative on a local level because it acknowledges the construction of culture and practices which provides a less restrictive framework for analysis than the other views on the culturalization of citizenship. This is done whilst acknowledging that it should not be read as a solid category and that there are other views that might go alongside it. It should be seen as a frame for analysis as intended by the authors (Tonkens and Duyvendak, 2016). Essentialized historicism will be used in the second empirical chapter when I will discuss how the culturalist and nativist discourses that are operative in the Netherlands find their expression at Startblok Elzenhagen. The concept of essentialist-historicism provides a frame to analyze interactions that relate to what Mepschen et al. and Scott have referred to the creation of the progressive self-image of the West (2010; 2018). The discussion on the hierarchical Global North South divide that ties into this essentialized historicized view will hence also be discussed.
Nativism, Culturalism, and (National) Belonging
That brings me to nativist and culturalist discourses. However, before I start this part it is important to note that it is widely understood that race is a social construct and has no biological basis, an insight advanced by
Ruth Benedict (Balkenhol et al, 2016). Hence, it follows that race is no longer an adequate category for social analysis. However, even though race is a discredited category, it remains in place as an implicit basis of social difference (Balkenhol et al., 2016). It is important to acknowledge the constructedness of ‘race’. However, as the authors Balkenhol, Mepschen, and Duyvendak argue it could be used to critically analyze existing racism (2016). There is a nationalist ideology that argues that the Netherlands or Europe at large has moved beyond race, and that ‘culture’ has replaced ‘race’ (Essed and Trienkens, 2008). This argument risks contributing to the ‘self-regulatory’ idea of a post-racialism society (Balkenhol et al, 2016). Thus, whilst acknowledging that it is constructed it can be useful in understanding the nativist framework at work in the Netherlands (Balkenhol et al., 2016).
Kešić and Duyvendak who have reviewed literature on the concept of Nativism and found an expression in many different definitions (2019). The commonality is it contains a distinction between the ‘natives’ and the ‘immigrants’ (Kešić and Duyvendak, 2019). The conceptualization of nativism combines the problem of ‘a threat to the nation’ with problematized groups that are held responsible for this threat; the immigrant minorities. The problematized groups are thus seen as alien and as a threat to the nation (Ibid. 2019). It is often linked to and intertwined with a culturist discourse. As described by Schinkel, culturism sets the boundaries and limits of society by committing the non-integrated to reside ‘outside society’ (2013). Essentially producing an image of a morally cleansed society. Thereby pushing social problems to the peripheral, to the ‘outside society’, to persons in need of integration (Schinkel, 2013). The culturist discourse in the Netherlands implies that the dominant Dutch culture is regarded as enlightened, secular and tolerant (van den Brink, 2006). Culturism is thus composed of a negative judgement of cultures that are labeled as different from the dominant culture. Culturism can be understood as an equivalent but functional form of racism (Schinkel, 2013). Culturism is similar to what scholars have called ‘new racism’ (Barker, 1981).
In the Netherlands discourses on religious and cultural alterity associated with post-colonial and labour migrants and their descendants is extensively present (Balkenhol et al. 2016). Racist discourse in everyday situations is prevailing. However, there is a reluctance to acknowledge race. After the second world war ‘race’ was deemed not important and as something that should rather not be mentioned (Essed and Trienekens, 2008). Hence, acknowledging ‘race’ or even ‘ethnicity’ as a formal category caused reluctance in the Netherlands and various other European countries (Amiraux & simon, 2006; Essed & Nimako, 2006). In the Netherlands cultural racism has a larger presence than biological racism (Essed, 1991). Nevertheless, the public discourse has been concerned with ‘national identity’ and ‘ethnicity’. In the same breath discourses on culture clashes between (post)modern cultures that are in conflict with ‘traditional’ immigrant cultures mostly concerning religious differences of Muslims have been held (Essed and Trienekens, 2008). According to Essed and Trienekens references to race are implicit and intertwined with concepts of ethnicity and culture (2008).
Essed has argued that the racial and ethnic are related criteria of ‘common sense categorization’ (1996). ‘Racial-Ethnic’ was suggested by Essed to account for the convergence of the different historically developed
systems of racialization and ethnicization (1996). Racial-ethnic groups are ‘not-yet-Europeans’ (Winant 2001). In the Netherlands it is still seen as highly unacceptable to register race but it has been normalized to administrate along ethnic lines (Essed and Trienkens, 2008). For example in public policy, statistical research, media representations and everyday idioms (de Zwart, 2012; Geschiere 2009). ‘Cultural’ problems are often the dominant discourse on racial-ethnic groups (van Dijk and Wodak, 2000). Since the turn of the century this discourse shifted and now centers particularly around Islam as anti-democratic (Essed and Tienkens, 2008). Hence, it is argued that a shift has taken place from skin color racism to exclusion based on culture and religion (Van Reekum and Duyvendak, 2012). However, Balkenhol, Mepschen, and Duyvendak argue that although the cultural aspect is more explicitly present, both cultural and racial modes of nativism are present in Dutch society (2016). The one focuses on cultural otherness (that can at times be equated with religion) and the other focuses on racial otherness (Balkenhol et al, 2016). They argue that these forms of nativism are present in the netherlands and linked with one another (Balkenhol et al, 2016).
These discourses symbolically divide society and thereby simplify the social space between ‘white Dutch autochthones’ and ‘non-Western allochthones’ (Balkenhol et al, 2016). Where autochthony signifies ‘born from the soil ' (Geschiere, 2009). A binary is created that is of major importance in recent debates on integration of people with a migration background, social cohesion, national identity, and a moral order (Mepschen et al, 2010). Claims of autochthony are intended to establish the right to belong. These claims are often utilized in (political) attempts to exclude outsiders (Geschiere, 2009). This brings up the politics of belonging. Autochthony as a basis for belonging is founded on the dualistic idea that rights are ‘naturally’ claimed by those born in a country whereas immigrants are excluded from these rights (Slootman, 2014).
The nativist discourse strives to determine who belongs to a society (Duyvendak, 2011; Duyvendak, 2017). In order to understand belonging as experiences of inclusion it is also of importance to acknowledge the opposite of inclusion, exclusion, and its effects. For the reason that experiences of exclusion also defines experiences of belonging (Kassaye et al. 2016). Experiences of being excluded and feeling different often lead to feelings of ‘not-belonging’ (Noble, 2005). Balkenhol et al. argue that nativism in the Netherlands should be seen as multilayered, they call it the ‘nativist triangle’. This triangle is composed of sexuality, race, and religion (2016). They argue that the reason nativism resonates in the Netherlands is due to the fact that race or culture/religion is invoked at strategic moments. They argue that besides culture/religion, nativist discourse is often interlinked with notions of whiteness and blackness. In particular their argument is that ‘Dutch culture’ is presented as ‘white’ and needs to be protected from non-white others (Balkenhol et al., 2016). In their analysis of ‘whiteness’ Essed and Trienekens come to a similar analysis in the understanding of the taken for granted normativity of the dominant Dutch culture (2008). With the concept of racial nativism Kešić and Duyvendak argue that it captures the entanglement between cultural and racial dimensions, thereby being a narrower concept than racism. The racial dimension of nativism is defined in the fact that an internal minority is constructed as black. It is a tool to show how racism works in the culturally orientated but yet implicitly
racialized concept of nativism (2019). Guided by this literature; in the second empirical chapter of my thesis I will use the racialized and culturalized conceptions of the nativist and culturalist discourses to analyze interactions with residents.
Home, Rootedness & the Sedarary bias
According to Stuard Hall, a foregrounded social theorist, the ‘multicultural question’ is the prime question we face today. Hall defines it as; how can people with different cultural traditions, and backgrounds live together in a way that is not confined to fixating and naturalizing the differences between people or assimilation (2000). Hence, how and to what extent can boundaries as a border encompass, rather than challenge boundaries of competing collective identities (Hall, 2000). Anthias turns the question around and asks under what conditions do people fail to live in harmony (2006). The dominant culturalist discourse has normalized the positioning of migrants (and their children) to ‘outside society’ (Schinkel, 2013). However, there is an approach to analyzing belonging that steps away from these frames.
As mentioned before the culturalist discourse leans on national belonging and has normalized the idea that people are positioned in terms of rootedness in the place of origin (Geschiere, 2009; Ghorashi, 2019). Malkki has called this ‘the sedentary bias’ (1995). ‘The sedentary bias’ means that belonging is constructed in the geographical territory of their countries of origin and/or their cultural background. For migrants it is thus considered normal and natural that they are positioned in their country of origin (1995). Thus, home is unequivocally related to a territorial location which is equated with the borders of a nation state (Gorashi, 2019). Hence, the belonging of migrants is constructed as somewhere else which creates a situation in which migrants can feel out of place in the countries of settlement (Ghorashi, 2019).
The notion of belonging that is operationalized within nativist and culturalist discourses is mostly concerned with excluding people from national belonging (Duyvendak, 2011; Duyvendak, 2017). Belonging is a concept that, depending on the literary tradition, has been operationalized in different forms. The use of belonging that I will refer to in my thesis is toofold. Firstly, I will use it in how it is deployed in culturalist and nativist discourses. This will be used in the second empirical chapter of my thesis. The second understanding of belonging finds its roots in a translocal perspective as described by Ghorashi (2019). Meaning that it addresses the issue of identity in terms of locations, which are context and time dependent rather than fixed. Accordingly, they involve contradictions and shifts (Ghorashi, 2019). As a result opening up the possibility for an intersectional framing of the understanding of belonging, because it moves away from the view that there are set ‘categories’ or ‘groups’ of class, gender, and ethnicity (Ibid., 2019). Instead this approach gives more attention to broader processes and social locations (Ibid., 2019). Anthias describes translocations as something that is not merely about the movement of people from one location to the next but as a concept that should be considered in terms of cultural and spatial sense (2008). Stating that “the notion of translocation references
the idea of ‘location’ as a social space which is produced within contextual, spatial, temporal and hierarchical relations around the ‘intersections’ of social divisions and identities of class, ethnicity and gender (amongst others)” (Anthias, 2008, p.9). This provides a different framework to analyzing belonging which transcends ideas of national and ethnic belonging (Ibid., 2008).
From this framework the concept of ‘the sedentary bias’ is challenged by a differentiated form of belonging (Malkki, 1995), something Ghorashi calls the ‘non-sedentary approach’ (2019). Meaning that the approach to home and belonging are alternatives to the rootedness frame that is dominantly present in the Netherlands (Ghorasi, 2019). Consequently, the rootedness as a single frame of reference of belonging that is created through the culturalist discourse is thereby challenged (Ibid., 2019). Antonsich argues and adds that belonging entails feeling at home. This includes both the physical space but also uses the larger imagined community as a space (2010). Identity and belonging is often framed in terms of emotions and home (Duyvendak, 2011; Duyvendak, 2017). Generally, a sense of belonging is created through the acceptance and acknowledgement of a self-identity by a wider community (Valentine et al., 2009). Belonging should thus also be understood in terms of experiences and emotional attachments (Anthias, 2008). The definition Anthias provides for belonging is that it signifies and should be seen as being part of the ‘social fabric’; “the ways in which social bonds and ties in practices, experiences, and emotions of inclusion” (2008, p.8). According to Anthias studies have indicated that questions of belonging occur because people feel that they cannot participate in, are excluded from, and/or cannot gain access to the dominant society (2008).
Although I will not make direct use of the concept of translocations and social position I want to acknowledge the tradition in which belonging is operationalized. In the final empirical chapter of my thesis I will build on the latter conception of belonging. I will use the idea of a non-sedentary approach to explore interactions between residents that do not seem to fit within the ‘rootedness’ frame proposed by the nativist and culturalist discourses. This will be complemented by Duyvendak’s politics of home meaning that belonging is often framed in terms of emotions and home (Duyvendak, 2011; Duyvendak, 2017).
3) Startblok Elzenhagen; Contextualization
Vignette - entering Startblok Elzenhagen
This vignette is intended to take you, the reader, along on my first trip to Startblok Elzenhagen. Its purpose -as is the purpose of this chapter- is to provide a feeling of the place and contextualize the project. My intention is to provide the reader with sufficient context on which I will build in the following chapters. In other words, for the reader to have a good understanding of the project. Thus the following segments will introduce the context and the different agents at stake. In a nutshell this chapter is intended to contextualize Startblok Elzenhagen.
Whilst riding the newly opened North-South line in Amsterdam I ponder on what I will say when I enter the language cafe. The announcement of our arrival at Amsterdam Central station wakes me from my musings. I become aware of my surroundings. The seats are made of hard plastic, they are new and somewhat uncomfortable. However, they surely are an improvement from the cramped seats in the regular metro. Central station means that I am almost there. I check my phone again. It is 19:02. I am going to be late. I briefly scroll through the website of Startblok Elzenhagen and open Google Maps. The dotted blue line on my phone indicates that it is a 6 minute walk (550 meter) from metro station Noord to my final destination. “Next stop: Noorderpark” the automated voice informs me. Most people have left the metro by now. I ride it to the end of the line. When we reach the final destination and I exit onto the platform a chilled wind strikes me. My fellow passengers disperse in the direction of the different exits and it becomes quiet. I try to find my bearings and start walking in the direction that Google Maps suggested to me. As I descend from the platform I spot the construction site and the narrow road that will take me to Startblok Elzenhagen. The road is actually a newly laid bike path. As I follow the path the soft noises of the metro station sink into the background. High fences rise on either side of the path, making me feel small and vulnerable. I hold my breath. I can only go one way, straight ahead. On my left there is a fenced off construction site and beyond that a closed off structure that supports the metro line. On my right I see a ditch, another construction site, and beyond that a large field of grass encircled with large green trees and what seems to be around a dozen of small vacation houses. It is quiet, no one is around. I quicken my step. It is starting to get dark sooner, a sign of the end of summer. As I keep walking I pass a large hill of sand and my view opens up. The sight of the buildings that I am trying to reach appears before me. There are six buildings: four to eight story flats that are spaciously placed on a vast piece of land. You can see that they are newly constructed, modernly decorated with gray and brown wood and pink brick on the patio and the parking area. Young bushes and trees are planted in front of the main building. The
flimsy bushes need to be supported by pins and straps. The area between the buildings form a desert-like sand pit, but if you look closely you can see that grass is starting to pop through the grains of sand.
The open space, the newly planted trees and the light colors are a stark contrast with the narrow bike path and I immediately feel more at ease. As I walk up to the main building I remember what my teacher told me: “As a researcher you are a spy, like James Bond. You notice everything around you”. I chuckle, I can vividly recall her saying this in class. This quote puts my nerves at ease. I take a deep breath and open the door. “Is this the Dutch language cafe?” I ask. “Sorry that I am late.” The room is located on the ground floor of the first building that you run into when you enter the terrain. It is the most wide set building. On the door there is a poster with activities written in English. As I enter I detect the smell of new concrete and paint. It is a large spacious room. You can see out onto the courtyard on the other side. There is a kitchen and a standing table on the left, a sturdy long table in the middle of the room, and on the right there are some couches. In the back I see a foosball machine and some cabinets. Party flags are pinned up on the ceiling. It feels and smells like a clean and new space.
Some people are drinking coffee and chatting by the standing table, others are sitting at the large table. Two men are talking by the coat rack. As I say hello a young man of about my age jumps up and walks towards me. “Welcome, welcome” he says in a thick Syrian-Dutch accent. “Do you want anything to drink”. I tell him that that would be lovely and I repeat that I am sorry that I am late. He smiles and says “Don’t worry, we have not even started”. He walks over to the kitchen and pours me a cup of tea. “Hello, welcome my name is *Ibrahim” he says and he introduces me to the two men standing by the table. We chat a little about the language cafe, the fact that I do not live there and that I have come all the way from Amsterdam Zuid. When I ask if it is ok if I join *Ibrahim responds with “no worries, of course you can join! There are more people from the neighborhood” and follows it up with “I think it is time to start.” He dashes to the other side of the room and gathers everyone. It is 19:20 at this point. The language cafe was supposed to start at 19:00. The two men who were standing by the coat rack go outside for a smoke. I join the people at the large table and introduce myself. It is a mixed group. Most people are men of about my age, but there are two men who I suspect to be around 40 years old. Ahmed leads the discussion. “Welcome to the language cafe” he says in Dutch. “Let us first introduce ourselves.” There are people from a broad range of countries; Syria, Palestine, Ethiopia, Syria, Uganda, the Netherlands, Ireland, China. The two guys who went out for a smoke come back and sit next to me. They smile and introduce themselves to me. I offer them my worksheet and we start with the exercise.
The vignette is the description of my first encounter with Startblok Elzenhagen when I started conducting my research. The narrow road from station Noord to Startblok that I took countless times over the course of my fieldwork became increasingly less threatening. I realized that there is social control and that most people who take the road are either residents of Startblok Elzenhagen or have Startblok Elzenhagen as their final destination. Many of the residents are familiar with each other and greet one another on this road. As one of
my interlocutors tellingly infomed me: “When I sit in my room and look outside I see [my neighbors]. ‘Hey, there is *Amber. Hey, that is *Indie. Hey, there is this person and that person!’ [...] and when I walk towards the station I know quite a lot of people.”5 I found there is familiarity amongst residents, especially those that are regularly involved in the
activities that are organized at Startblok Elzenhagen. In terms of social control another interlocutor mentioned: “It is like a small village. If anything happens in blok 6, the one furthest away, everyone will ask ‘what is happening?’ ‘How, what?!’’ 6
Residents have a private Facebook group through which they communicate not only about social gatherings but also about requests and complaints. The Facebook group is also intended to share events that are organized at Startblok Elzenhagen. The weekly returning language cafe is an example of one of the many events that are hosted here. I kept coming back week after week and I do not recall a single time we started at 19.00. This was not a problem and seemed to be widely understood and accepted amongst attendees. Over the course of my fieldwork I met many people and was often warmly invited to join in on events or sit in at the activities that took place. I have experienced that residents are welcoming to outsiders and an openness to join their events. As I will later discuss in this thesis, outsiders (friends, neighbors) were welcome to join. However, during my research it was revealed to me that the residents, in particular the ones who are active and engage with the activities, have created their own form of social engagement. As an outsider, unaware of these unwritten rules of behavior, you can and will stand out.
Many of the Dutch residents who I encountered throughout my time at Startblok Elzenhagen shared with me that their main reason to move to Elzenhagen was the need for a house. As one interlocutor told me: “Well to be honest I really wanted a house with my own kitchen! So that was my initial motivation to look for a place and then I saw this and I thought, wow that is a cool project and I have my own kitchen.”7 Many of them followed it up with a
statement that they also enjoyed and supported the project. The residents who are status holders are directed to Startblok Elzenhagen through organizations and shared that they were placed at the project and did not know beforehand where they were placed. One of my interlocutors explained to me: “I came through the asylum centrum. They choose where I would live. I am going to go to college, so they chose Amsterdam for me. I am alone, I don’t have a family so they chose Amsterdam.” 8 Now that I have sketched the initial sensation and observations of being at the
project the next segment will elaborate on the context, internal structure and ‘mission and vision’ of the project. Lastly, I will address that it lacks necessary resources to address some of the issues that would be necessary for a housing project where both status holders and Dutch nationals can thrive.
5 *Sanne: Formal interview 6 *Nina: Formal interview 7 *Sandra: Formal Interview 8 *Ibrahim: Formal Interview
The project
Startblok Elzenhagen is first and foremost a temporary housing complex. The complex offers 540 housing units, 270 for young status holders and 270 for students and/or youngsters from the Netherlands (age 18-27).9
The project is a joint initiative from social housing corporations ‘de Key’, ‘Eigenhaard’, and the municipality of Amsterdam. It is located in Amsterdam North and set up in a campus-like structure. In total there are six buildings of which one is the main building with an office and common room that can be used by residents for their initiatives or events such as the language cafe. The housing spaces are ‘modular units’. This means that these are homes that you can build and move one by one. They are constructed as temporary housing, lasting five to seven years.
The concept of Startblok originates from social housing corporation de Key. The project on which Startblok Elzenhagen is modeled is Startblok Riekerhaven. This was met with enthusiasm by both the municipality and the government. At the time, the minister of housing affairs, Stef Blok, used Startblok Riekerhaven as an example for housing for status holders.10 . In 2015 the municipality of Amsterdam was
assigned to house a minimum of 2000 status holders per year by the government of the Netherlands (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). In the, at the time relevant, housing policy document for ‘vulnerable groups’ the municipality indicates their desire to “to speed up the participation and integration of vulnerable groups”(p.25). They stipulate their intent to accomplish this through “mixing of different target groups within the rental of housing complexes” (p.25). The municipality explicitly mentions that they desire to model after earlier projects with young status holders and students like the Startblok Riekerhaven complex of de Key. “Every project will be individually judged if vulnerable groups are spread throughout the complex and not placed in the same part of the building” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015, p.25).
Internal structure
Startblok Elzenhagen is promoted as a project that centralizes self-management and self-organization this is done by selecting members for a ‘zelfbeheer team’, this can be seen as an internal management team. All members of this team are residents of Startblok Elzenhagen. They are tasked with creating social cohesion and regulation of the project. There is one external employee at the project: the project coordinator. The project coordinator does not live at Startblok Elzenhagen and is the point of contact for the housing corporation and tellingly describes himself as the “mayor of Elzenhagen.” 11 The zelfbeheer team consists of a PR & communications function
9 Startblok Elzenhagen, ‘Who is it For’, https://startblokelzenhagen.nl/en/what-is-startblok/who-is-it-for/ (visited on august 17, 2020)
10 Eerste Kamer der Staten Generaal, Behandeling Huisvesten vergunninghouders,
https://www.eerstekamer.nl/verslagdeel/20160705/huisvesten_vergunninghouders (visited on august 17, 2020) 11 Startblok Elzenhagen, De ‘Burgemeester’ van het Startblok,
