The future 'at risk' - the present 'in crisis' : on young metropolitans' everyday (un)doings of risk and uncertainty in Athens, Greece

(1)

The Future ‘At Risk’ - The Present ‘In Crisis’

– On Young Metropolitans’ Everyday (Un)Doings of Risk and

Uncertainty in Athens, Greece –

(Spotted in Athens, 20th_{August 2018)}

Amsterdam, 30th_{July 2019}

University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Social Sciences Research MSc Social Sciences (RMSS) Student: Antonia Mednansky (10316787) Supervisor: Dr. Patrick Brown Second Reader: Dr. Evelyne Baillergeau

(2)

2

1 Introduction

1.1 Setting the Stage: Hector got a job and threw a party

At the beginning of October, Hector told me full of excitement that he would start working officially as an Arabic language teacher at a language institute in central Athens. He explained, he waited for weeks for his contract, which had made him increasingly nervous. All parties had agreed to the conditions, but they had to wait further for bureaucratic processes. It seemed strange to me that Hector agreed to the contract. His name was stated in it; however, the mentioned monthly salary would be divided in three. The language institute would save taxes by only issuing a contract for one new employee while hiring three new people at the same time. Hector would benefit from this agreement as he would be the only one receiving a contribution to his health insurance.

Two days later, I met Hector and his friend Demetri at one of Koukaki’s bars and Hector told us about his plans to arrange a dinner to celebrate his first official job after receiving his PhD. While complimenting Hector for his job, Demetri expressed concerns about the costs involved for the party.

Demetri: “Why do you want to do it at your place? It is expensive, let’s just go to a bar!” Hector:”I want to order pizza, this new pizza place around the corner just opened and they have really, really good pizza.”.

Demetri:”But let us then pay you some money for the pizza”. Hector: “No, no. it will be on me. It is my party.”

Demetri: “Oh come on, you will spend a third of your first salary on the pizzas, that’s ridiculous. But well, ok, I will bring beer!”.

So, November 1st came along and Hector’s closest friends and I came to ‘Koku’s Nest’1 – the lovely name of his flat on Airbnb – to eat pizza and have a drink. When I arrived, I saw that he bought party plates and cups and arranged a little bar in the kitchen, offering beer, coca cola, whiskey and ouzo. The atmosphere was very cheerful, everyone laughed, sat tightly together on the small sofa and wooden chairs. Every 10 minutes or so, someone was initiating a toast on Hector’s behalf: “To Hector, to the new teacher” or “To Hector, earning money for the first time”. I had never seen Hector so smiley and confident. However, as I had observed

(5)

5

multiple times by now, teasing and bullying was mixed with love and companionship when the friends socialized with each other. Also, today:

Maria: “Hector, what is up with you? New haircut, new trousers, party plates, pizza for all of us?!”.

Hector was being a good sport, chuckled, everybody cheerfully cheered, and the sound of clinking glasses and laughter filled the small, by now quite smoky, living room. I really appreciated that everyone talked in English, regardless if the conversation engaged me or not, which gave me a great chance to follow all the conversations. They talked about Elias’ new business; he would be the manager of a bar that would open in the next weeks. Demetri offered to help with the marketing, however, his kind offer was mocked by his friends as bragging.

Elias: “I am taking care of that, I already spoke to some newspapers and radio stations. Where could you help me? You, big man with all your contacts, he?!”

Demetri: “Ah, so you already talked to Antenne, Tele5? I can bring you into contact with them! I can make it happen!”.

Later in the evening Hector became again the center of mockery by Demetri.

Demetri: “So, you will be a teacher now, he, a little language teacher, you with all your philosophy diplomas, earning now for the first time real money”.

The group appeared not amused about his comment and they called him a ‘malaka’ [Greek for jerk]. Demetri then defended himself: “Oh come on, none of us here is having a future” He looked into the crowd and then sarcastically added “well maybe Nikos”. Nikos was unemployed. Everyone laughed again and the topic changed to Panos’ and Melia’s planned move to Kifisia, one of the wealthiest suburbs of Athens, which Demetri commented with “ah, Kifisia, you little posh princess”. She seemed to be used to his comments as she just rolled her eyes, but started joking with her friend Thea about Demetri losing his hair, which apparently hurt him and he accused me of starting to form an alliance against him with Melia: “Tonia, I really respected you, but now I see you with the girls making fun of me, come on, that’s really not nice”. In this moment I envied Nikos, who silently sat at the kitchen counter, overlooking the living room, and by that could observe everything without sitting, like me, directly in the battlefield. Though, it did not take long until Nikos unwillingly became the centre of attention when his friends insisted that he should sing for us. After rejecting several

(6)

6

times, Nikos started to sing. It was a beautiful Greek song. Panos asked Elias to switch off the light and after the first lines, everyone joined in and clapped their hands in time. They looked at each other, smiled and I could sense a sudden change of atmosphere. It was a sad song, and even though they had insulted and mocked each other a minute before that, I could now see their unity, their love and affection for one another, the long years of friendship that held them together.

Hector’s party took place three months after my arrival in Athens. It was one of the many social occasions I engaged with the friendship group and learned about their individual and shared struggles with the crisis-ridden Greek economy. As it appeared during my five months-long fieldwork, not only Hector was affected by the large youth unemployment in Greece, but many of his friends and others of his generation faced precarious labour market conditions and insecure futures. The risks that young people encountered in their present lives and regarding their future outlooks in Athens, and their relation to precarious economic realities, form the central focus of this thesis.

1.2 Introducing the Topic: Studying Risk in the Context of the Greek Crisis

Young adults in Greece have witnessed over the last decade stark societal transformations and political-historical events that have impacted on their everyday lives (Gouglas, 2013, Chalari, 2015, Tsekeris et al., 2015). For almost a decade the Greek population has been confronted with the hazardous socio-economic effects of the 2008 global financial crisis. In 2010, Greece officially collapsed under its debt and agreed three years later with the IMF and the EU to adopt austerity measures in exchange for receiving a €110 billion safe-package. The first ‘bail-out’ program cost 25,000 public servants their jobs, and resulted in wage cuts and tax reforms2_{, leading to increasing protests that attracted global attention in the media. In 2015,}

the left-wing Syriza party won the national elections, spreading hope for an alternative way out of the crisis through promoting an anti-austerity program. Shortly before Greece’s payment to the IMF expired in June 2015, the then ruling prime minister Tsipras declared an emergency capital control, limiting bank withdrawals and calling a national bank holiday. He even carried out a referendum, proposing to reject austerity measures, set by the IMF and the EU. While the referendum called for a withdrawal, in July 2015, Tsipras officially agreed to the third ‘bail-out’ program, which came effective in 2016. Further implemented tax and

(7)

7

pension reforms, public spending cuts, and reformed labour laws, further weakened Greece’s labour market security and safety net, leading to growing poverty (Gouglas, 2013). Over the last two years, employment finally increased again (20%)3_{, even though the Greek economy}

remained constrained by owing €290 billion to the IMF and the EU4_{. The continuously high}

youth unemployment rate (40%)5_{reflects further the precarious state of the Greek economy.}

Nevertheless, on 20 August 2018, three weeks after my arrival in Athens, Pierre Moscovici (European commissioner for economic and financial affairs) stated that Greece “can finally turn the page” 6_{, having reached the official end of the third ‘bail-out’ program.}

People living in Greece, however, might not be able to yet “turn the page” as their social experiences of the last years were defined by austerity measures and a total restructuring of the country’s political-economic system.

Motivated to study how young people experienced the impact of the crisis on their everyday lives almost a decade after the collapse of the Greek economy, I conducted an anthropological study on young graduates’ interpretations and experiences of risk and uncertainty. My focus on young graduates in Athens provides a unique perspective on the mediation of socio-economic change, as their entrance into the labour market coincided with the crisis. Hence, the case of ‘the young generation in Greece’ shifts attention to the implications of transitioning to adulthood under extreme conditions, such as austerity policies and crisis. This thesis presents the results of my research. It will shed light on the different interpretations and experiences of the crisis, as well as its risks associated with it – for and of young graduates. I applied an intersectional perspective to analyze risk in relation to precarious economic realities, in order to elaborate on the complexity of risk and ‘doing risk’ (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017). 3_{See: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/greeces-debt-crisis-timeline (15.07.2019)} 4_{See: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/greeces-debt-crisis-timeline (15.07.2019)} 5_{See https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-rate (29.07.2019)} 6_{See: https://www.theguardian.com/world//aug/20/eu-greece-bailout-ends-pierre-moscovici (28.07.2019)}

(8)

8

2 Context

In this chapter, I will embed the Greek crisis in the context of the global financial crisis of 2008 and its materialization in Europe. Firstly, the impact of the financial crisis on young people’s lives in European countries will be specified, illuminating increasing risks associated with their transition to adulthood. Secondly, I will review sociological and anthropological studies that zoom into the impact of the crisis on the Greek labour market and young people’s well-being. Lastly, I will assess secondary data on young people's attitudes towards enabling change in Greece, which will introduce the need to study further how biographical risks are experienced and dealt with in their relation to economically precarious realities.

2.1 Financial Crisis in Europe: Precarious Labour Market Conditions

Scholars long have argued that young generations, living in late capitalist societies, were facing increasingly precarious labour market conditions (Standing, 2012, Knijn, 2012, Gutiérrez, 2014). On a European level, the Great Recession of the late 2000s challenged national economies to different degrees and particularly exposed young people in Southern European countries (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece) to become more vulnerable to unemployment and financial precariousness (Knijn, 2012, Gutiérrez, 2014, Matsaganis, 2013, Kretsos, 2014, Chtouris et al., 2006, Woestman, 2012, Gouglas, 2013).

To elaborate, cross-cultural studies among EU member states demonstrated that generational vulnerabilities for young people aggravated because their entrance into the labour market coincided with the unfolding financial crisis (Knijn, 2012, Gutiérrez, 2014). This economic instability then further challenged young people’s transition to full-employment and independence in Southern Europe (Knijn, 2012, Chtouris et al., 2006). However, Knijn (2012) emphasized that generational demands associated with adulthood, need to be understood as inter-connected to socio-cultural norms regarding age and gender, and thus vary across European societies (Knijn, 2012). Unfortunately, Knijn (2012) neither empirically illustrated the differing socio-cultural interpretations of adulthood in Europe, nor did she elaborate on inter-subjective experiences of biographical disruptions. Chtouris and colleagues (2006), however, found that before the financial crisis, young people in Spain, Italy, and Greece tended to live longer in the family home than their peers in Scandinavia or Central Europe (Chtouris et al., 2006). One might falsely assume that youngsters in Southern

(9)

9

Europe experience a normative prolonged transition to adulthood as less disruptive as people in Northern European countries. Chtouris emphasised the contrary:

”Living in the family home results in negative social and economic consequences, such as an economic burden on the family, a delay in reaching social adulthood and independence and confusion as regards self-identity” (Chtouris et al., 2006:312). Considering that prolonged financial dependency indicates economic constraints (Chtouris et al., 2006), the financial crisis could aggravate structural obstacles that hinder people’s transition to adulthood. So, young people living in Southern European societies appear not only 'at risk' to poverty and unemployment (Knijn, 2012, Gutiérrez, 2014), but also 'at risk' to not live up towards internalized, discursive expectations, associated with adulthood (Chtouris et al., 2006).

The interwovenness of financial and biographical risks was also found by other scholars who researched the struggle of young people regarding (re)employment in situated economically challenged settings in Europe (Kretsos, 2014, Matsaganis, 2013, Woestman, 2012, Baillergeau & Hoijtink, 2010)7. In contrast to Knijn (2012), these scholars specified the multi-dimensionality of generational vulnerabilities and emphasized their intersection with gender and class. To elaborate, Kretsos (2014) and Matsaganis (2013) found that the financial crisis in Greece deepened existing social inequalities and thus exposed young people from less privileged class-background to become even more vulnerable to precariousness. Baillergeau’s and Hoijtink’s (2010) study elucidated that the possibility of upward social mobility also had been unequally distributed among young people in North-Western Europe. Their findings on young people living in deprived urban areas further demonstrated that precarious labour market conditions intensify generational vulnerabilities, which intersect with age, gender, class, and ethnicity. Structural obstacles – across European countries – therefore reproduced the risk of precariousness for young people of particular socio-economic positioning, while introducing it to people of former more privileged class-backgrounds and gender.

To sum up, the international financial crisis of the early 2000s especially affected already fractured Southern European economies through producing increasingly precarious labour

7_{In Greece, among all age groups, female employment decreased both in the private and public sector (Gutiérrez, 2014,}

Woestman, 2011), while male employment notably fell in construction and manufacturing (Woestman, 2011). In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, young women (and in Italy, also young men) suffered from increasing unemployment (Gutiérrez, 2014:381).

(10)

10

market conditions. This heightened the stakes for young people to transition to adulthood through full-employment and (financial) independence. Considering that generational vulnerabilities intersect with other socio-cultural and -economic categories across European countries, then demonstrated that the global financial crisis increased the risk of precariousness for young people, though in different ways.

2.2 Financial Crisis in Greece: The Decline of the Greek Welfare State

On a national level, the financial crisis materialized in the decline of the Greek welfare state and impacted on young people’s present lives and futures outlooks (Gouglas, 2013, Papatheodorou, 2014, Kretsos, 2014, Matsaganis, 2013).

Firstly, and to reiterate, young people appeared as increasingly vulnerable to the risk of unemployment and precariousness in Greece (Gouglas, 2013, Papatheodorou, 2014, Matsaganis, 2013, Kretsos, 2014). In Greece, the increasingly precarious labour market conditions unfolded in the decreasing availability of long-term contracts, decreasing minimum wages, and increasing taxation on private businesses (Papaheodorou, 2014, Gouglas, 2013, Matsaganis, 2013). Additionally, high social costs and decreasing trust in governmental institutions were observed (Papaheodorou, 2014), due to reduced access to health care and unemployment benefits8_{. From this perspective, the current state of the Greek economy could}

indeed be labeled as 'precarious' (Standing, 2012). According to the scholars, however, the financial crisis furthered the gradual collapse of the Greek welfare system rather than having produced precarious labour market conditions (Papaheodorou, 2014, Gouglas, 2013). This trend already could be observed from the mid-1990s onwards when the imagery of 'Metapolitefsi' (imagining the Greek society as capable of providing economic growth, occupational stability, and representative civil democracy) started to become less and less plausible (Tsekeris et al., 2015).

Also, other scholars understood the crisis as a catalyst for worsening the already fractured Greek economy and explained its collapse as a result of local dysfunctional political-economic structures (Kretsos, 2014, Matsagnanis, 2013, Woestman, 2012). In contrast to Gouglas (2013) and Papaheodorou (2014), the scholars emphasized that the crisis deepened persistent social inequalities. To illustrate, Matsaganis (2013) identified that younger households in urban areas now struggled more as they experienced a starker

8_{. Unemployment benefits can only be received to a maximum duration of 12 months and are limited to 200}

(11)

11

discrepancy between a decreasing income and fixed living costs than people living in more rural societies (Matsaganis, 2013). Woestman (2012) identified that single mothers were at highest risk of poverty as they faced salary cuts, paired with a decrease in maternity leave payments and social benefits (Woestman, 2012). Furthermore, people with a post-graduate degree faced less unemployment than people holding lower educational degrees, but were similarly vulnerable to short contracts (Gutiérrez, 2014, Matsaganis, 2013). Increasing gaps in the social safety net and the low employment rate for young people thus also increased the risk of unemployment and precariousness for former more privileged population groups, and aggravated the socio-economic positioning of those who faced unequal footing already before the crisis. Yet, the impact of gender and class on people’s interpretations and experiences of this down-ward economic development, has not been researched in the context of the ‘Greek crisis’.

Secondly, scholars identified that increasing precarious economic realities produced increasing inter-generational dependencies for young people living in Greece (Papatheodorou, 2014, Gouglas, 2013, Woestman, 2012), which shifts attention to the family as a source of (in)security and inter-generational tensions.

On the one hand, Chtouris (2006) and Maratou-Alibranti (1991) agreed that the family provides a source of socio-economic security and described it as a feature of a "distinct Mediterranean type of welfare state" (Chtouris, 2006:318) and as “the major protective mechanism for youth in Greece” (Maratou-Alibranti, 1999 in Chtouris, 2006:318). On the other hand, they disagreed on its effect on young people's sense of security. While inter-generational dependencies could balance economic constraints by providing financial support, housing, and potentially emotional support across periods of time and economic transformations (Maratou-Alibranti, 1999), continuous dependency on parents could result in identity-disruptions and further mirrors structural constraints (Chtouris, 2006). Moreover, the crisis potentially produced reversed, less conventional, financial support mechanisms because young people's parents also faced decreasing salaries and pensions, generating for some double (or even triple) financial responsibilities (Papatheodorou, 2014, Woestman, 2012). The effect of young people supporting their parents on their self-image has not yet been researched. However, young people's attitudes towards their parents' generation were examined. For instance, Gouglas (2013) found that intergenerational tensions had been increasing over the last years in Greece because young people increasingly felt deprived of

(12)

12

the possibility of a (more) secure future through education (Gouglas, 2013). While for their parents’ generation education guaranteed the possibility of upward social mobility (Gouglas, 2013), precarious labour market conditions excluded this possibility from young people's future imaginations. The financial crisis thus did not only result in increasing inter-generational dependencies; moreover, it produced inter-inter-generational tensions (Gouglas, 2013), illustrating that young people in Greece were increasingly experiencing a discrepancy between earlier future aspirations and economic realities, both impacting their sense of Self. Whether inter-generational dependencies were experienced by the participants as producing or balancing biographical risks will be further elaborated on in my thesis.

Thirdly, the increasing uncertainty of their futures and the evaluation of (for some new) precarious economic realities, were identified to impact on the mental health of young people in Greece (Chalari, 2015, Tsekeris et al., 2015, Woestman, 2012, Wahlbeck, 2012). These studies revealed that the financial crisis produced negative socio-psychological effects (i.e. anxiety, despair, lack of self-worth, depression) that stem from experiences of a lack of secure livelihood and scarce means for self-actualization (Tsekeris et al., 2015, Chalari, 2015). Chalari (2015) added the vital insight that the experience of the crisis increased uncertainty and insecurity, resulting in young people feeling increasingly hopeless regarding their futures (Chalari, 2015). Unfortunately, Chalari (2015) and Tsekeris (2015) did not explore whether social forms of capital, like family or friends, increased in their importance for young people regarding dealing with high stakes of uncertainty (Wahlbeck, 2012). In this thesis, inter-subjective interpretations of sources of stability and security therefore portray a vocal point of my analysis, to further research how young people deal with uncertainty and precariousness.

2.3 On Hope and Attitudes of Change

While in the peak years of the crisis (2011-2015) many studies had been conducted on young people’s reaction to the crisis and tackled questions of political participation and emigration, little research had been done on young people’s individual and interactive ways to deal with the (for some new) financial and biographical risks in the specific context of the Greek crisis.

Several scholars illuminated that the crisis produced self-identity disruptions through challenging the materialization of dominant self-hood narratives (see Chapter 2.1, 2.2), but only Chalari (2015) researched subjective evaluations of financial and biographical risks. The

(13)

13

scholar found that people reacted to these new risks in the form of considering emigrating or adapting their consumption to their constrained economic realities (Chalari, 2015). Chalari’s findings indicated hopelessness among the participants, illustrated by participants’ pessimism toward an improving labour market security (Chalari, 2015). Considering that these participants had not emigrated at the time of the research, could indicate that hope plays a role in translating aspirations into action and shifts attention to the inter-subjective experience of precariousness and its impact on people’s “capacities to think and act otherwise” (Tsekeris et al., 2015:16). Chalari, however, did not elaborate on how socio-economic positioning, as well as age and gender, play into people’s capacity to reflexively react to financial and biographical risks. Neither did she explore how the participants coped with the negative emotions that they expressed. This limitation rooted in the scholar's choice for life history interviews from which mainly past experiences and internalized ideas could be elucidated. Hence, I perceive the combination of interviewing and participant observation as essential in order to grasp individual and interactive ways to deal with risk and uncertainty (see Chapter 4).

Furthermore, while Chalari (2015) focused on individual, yet shared, experiences of the crisis, scholars who studied young people’s engagement in political participation instead researched the impact of the crisis on attitudes towards (enabling) change on a group level9_.

Interestingly, these studies (i.e. Arampatzi, 2017, Vaiou et al., 2016) emphasized practices of collective action and solidarity as collaborative ways to generate hope and to imagine change in the strongly constrained crisis setting (Arampatzi, 2017, Vaiou et al., 2016). Thereby, the scholars sketched a more hopeful imagery for and of the young generation in Greece than studies conducted on young people’s individual experiences of precariousness and biographical disruptions (i.e. Chalari, 2015, Tsekeris et al., 2015).

Considering that political activism was observed to decrease after the peak crisis years (see Chapter 1), could suggest that hope for a way out of the crisis (on a societal and personal level) decreased over the last years as the economic situation did not significantly improve. Whether the "young precariat" (Gouglas, 2013) indeed became a "“lost generation” and “baby losers” due to growth-less and job-less incremental structural change” (Gouglas, 2013:43), will be discussed through my findings on the participants interpretations and experiences of risk and uncertainty, and their engagement in individually and collaboratively generating alternative futures.

9_{I will not review these studies in detail as they deviate from this thesis’ topic on everyday doings of risk in}

(14)

14

My study thus aims to follow up Tskeris and colleagues (2015), Gouglas (2013), and Chalari (2015) and further assess the impact of (increasing) precarious realities on young people’s everyday lives and well-being in Greece. As elaborated, the evolvement of precarious labour market conditions materialized in the (re)production of financial and biographical risks. Considering that no notable economic improvements could be observed in Greece since almost a decade of crisis, normative notions associated with the transition to adulthood could have changed, or the stakes of risk and uncertainty regarding people’s sense of security and self further increased.

In an attempt to contribute to generational studies conducted in Greece and in regard to the crisis, my research will add insights into young people’s everyday handlings of (new) risks and in its intersection with gender and socio-economic positioning. In this way, I will modify the grand conceptualization of self-identity, risk and socio-economic change, as introduced by Giddens (1991), and will emphasize a situated perspective on the experience of change and of doing risk (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017).

(15)

15

3 Theoretical Background

As mentioned above, I am particularly interested in investigating the specific risks that young, metropolitan Greeks identified and experienced in their everyday lives, as well as how shared struggles played into their individual evaluations of and encounters with risk and uncertainty. Therefore, in this chapter, I will firstly review prominent theorizations of the relation between Risk, Self-identity and Society. Secondly, I will elaborate on relevant insights of contemporary research into risk, in order to provide a nuanced theoretical framework of risk-interpretation, -experience and -management. In doing so, the key concepts of self-identity, risk and doing risk will be introduced, and an intersectional perspective on risk will be endorsed.

3.1 Theorizing the Relation between Risk, Self and Society

Key works on Risk research in the social sciences centre around the reflexive modernization framework of the sociologists Giddens and Beck. These accounts are associated with the notion of “Risk Society”, introducing the production of ‘new’ risks in (late) modern societies (Giddens, 1991, Beck, 1992). Their grand narratives on the dynamic between socio-economic change, risk and self-identity portray the backbone of this theoretical background, which I am eager to translate and modify in an anthropological fashion. Considering my thesis’ focus on risk and uncertainty in relation to crisis-ridden realities, I will zoom into the conceptualization of ontological security (Giddens, 1991) as it elaborates on the impact of risk and uncertainty on people’s well-being.

To elaborate, Beck and Giddens argued that Modernization manufactured risks in the realms of nature, economics and self-identity (Giddens 1991, Beck, 1992). For the scholars, last century’s nation-state building projects, the re-organization of time and space and the ever-expanding capitalist system, portrayed interwoven modern developments, reflexively increasing the stakes of uncertainty and insecurity regarding people’s presents and futures (Giddens 1991, Beck, 1992). From Beck’s vantage point, the scientific and technological achievements of the preceding century used to generate the illusory control of men over nature (Beck, 1992). However, in the late modern era, technology was exposed to carry a threat in itself (Beck, 1992) as people became aware of, i.e., the incalculable effects of nuclear catastrophes and capitalism’s carbon footprint (Beck, 1992). While ‘new’ ecological and health-related risks have put people’s present and future physical safety at risk, technology –

(16)

16

identified as ‘risky’ itself – remains as the sole means to deal “with the hazards of modernity” (Beck, 1992:21).

Giddens similarly explained that risks and increasing uncertainty were generated through the reflexive dynamic between structural change and human action, and between scientific objectives and discursive ideas (Giddens, 1991). While Beck stressed that manufactured ecological risks jeopardized the guarantee of physical safety for people living in the Risk Society (Beck, 1992), Giddens elaborated on ‘new’ risks produced through changes in people’s personal and socio-economic life and regarding their self-identities (Giddens, 1991). Along with changing scientific objectives and institutions, working conditions and normative notions transformed, including dominant narratives of self-hood (Giddens, 1991). While breaking with traditional self-conceptualizations (i.e. gender roles), consumerist lifestyles could portray new sources of self-identification in late modern societies. However, understanding and actualizing one’s being in the social world (the Project of the Self10_{) now}

involved perpetual considerations (lifestyle choices) and thereby constant negotiations of risks and uncertainties (Giddens, 1991)

A theoretical “plurality of choices” (Giddens, 1991:83) therefore could potentially unfold in a dilemma of choice as people could suffer from severe self-identity disruptions as a result of experiencing a discrepancy between feeling ‘to be in the world’ and evaluated ‘risky’ realities (Giddens, 1991). The emotional phenomenon of ‘being in the world’, or of ontological security (Giddens, 1991), theoretically demands the maintenance of basic trust: “a sense of continuity and order in events, including those not directly within the perceptual environment of the individual" (Giddens, 1991:243). A trust which proves to be significantly challenging to maintain, considering the increasing stakes of risk and uncertainty, perpetually bringing about fateful moments (Giddens, 1991) that threaten taken-for-granted certainties and thereby the maintenance of one’s self-identity. In this way, Giddens explained that living in a Risk Society potentially fractures people’s basic trust and feeling of security in themselves, due to continuous confrontations with risk and uncertainty (Giddens, 1991).

Nevertheless, for Giddens (1991), individuals have the capacity to rationally deal with risk and uncertainty. According to the scholar, people are driven by enhancing their feeling of security and reflexively react to modernity’s hazards, and ultimately make strategic decisions

10_{The project of the self terms the process of reflexively reorienting oneself towards a different life-style option;}

(17)

17

(Giddens, 1991). Giddens explained further that people rely on new forms of knowledge11_in

order to become acquainted with and to order new self-narratives. So, while the high modern context challenges people’s feelings of ontological security, systems of expert knowledge portray means through which individuals could restore their challenged Self-identities; illustrating that new risks and uncertainties are produced and handled through the reflexive dynamic between changing socio-economic structures, discursive ideas and self-identity management.

To sum up, Risk appears in Giddens’ (1991) and Beck’s (1992) accounts as a socio-economic and political phenomenon, introduced by societal changes inherent to Modernity. Living under the conditions of a Risk Society then increased the risk to become vulnerable to increasing stakes of uncertainty and insecurity. I consider the notion of ontological security as an important insight because it grasps that people’s self-identity becomes fractured through experiencing increasing uncertainty, which in turn challenges the continuity of basic trust in themselves, their presents and their futures. Hence, self-identity management is central in studying risk interpretation and experience and introduces self-identity as one of my key concepts for this thesis.

3.2 Risk Interpretation and Experience

Along with Beck (1992), Giddens (1991) analyzed the grand risks of modernity, however, their studies dismissed that grand risks materialize in different fashions as they intersect with already existing insecurities and uncertainties (Giritli Nygren et al., 2014 & 2017). Even though Giddens recognized that “Modernity […] produces difference, exclusion and marginalization” (Giddens, 1991:6), the scholar proposed that Risk Society portrays a “global condition of contemporary social existence”12 (Giddens, 1991:28) and ascribed individuals a reflexive “calculative” (Giddens, 1991:28) capacity to react to these new risks. This analytical limitation unfolds in dislocating individuals from their socio-economic and cultural context and thus in essentializing risk. In this section, I will therefore elaborate on the importance of understanding risk as a cultural and social construct (Douglas, 2013, Boholm,1996, Zinn,

11_{‘Systems of expert knowledge’ are “systems of knowledge of any type, depending on rules of procedure}

transferable from individual to individual” (Giddens, 1991:243).

12_{“Living under the conditions of Modernity means living with a calculative attitude to the open possibilities of}

action, positive and negative, with which, as individuals and globally, we are confronted in a continuous way in our contemporary social existence” (Giddens, 1991:28)

(18)

18

2016), intersecting with gender, age, ethnicity and class (Giritli Nygren et al., 2014 & 2017), and ultimately, as a performed practice (Gitili Nygren, 2017). In this way, I will introduce additional key concepts of risk and doing risk to the thesis.

On the Cultural Dimension of Risk

Risks are culturally constructed. Douglas introduced that risk interpretation is informed by culturally discursive ideas, shared by individuals who associate themselves to a social group. In this way, the anthropologist argued that ‘threats’ vary between different cultures and social groups (Douglas, 2003)). Nevertheless, context-specific evaluations reflect a similar reflexive dynamic as it mirrors “a power inhering in the structure of ideas, a power by which the structure is expected to protect itself” (Douglas Tansey & O’Riordan, 1999:12). Having said that, an analysis of risk requires being acquainted with the local, personal view of risk by the respective social-cultural group an individual associated her/himself to (Douglas, 2013:4, Zinn, 2016:362). Only then, cultural logics regarding risk interpretation and management can be dismantled and de-essentialized (Boholm, 1996). Choices concerning risk management thus are interconnected with culturally specific risk perceptions, prescribing an inherent reasonable logic (Douglas, 2003, Boholm 1996, Zinn, 2016); a logic, which might appear to the outsider as irrational and, hence, might be falsely judged “unreasonable” (Zinn, 2016:348). Therefore, risk interpretation and management need to be understood as culturally situated. Moreover, etic and emic perceptions need to be taken seriously in an anthropological study on doings of risk (Giritli Nygren et al., 2014).

On the Socio-Cultural Dimension of Risk

Risks are not only cultural constructions but also social ones. Within a social group, gender, age, ethnicity and class operate and thereby intersect with and (re)produce risk (Giritl Nygren et al., 2014, Giritli Nygren et al., 2016, Walley, 2013), resulting in creating ‘riskier’ lifeworlds for some members of society. Normative notions associated with social categorizations, i.e. gender, age and class, thus need to be understood as shaping risk interpretation and experience (Giritli Nygren et al., 2016). To elaborate, people may make decisions that entail high stakes of (normative) risk, but these decisions could to be inherent of a class/gender/generational based logic (Walley, 2013, Nooteboom, 2015, Giritli Nygren et al., 2014). To illustrate, gambling worsens the financial security of the players but its practice was found to be experienced as providing feelings of self-worth and masculinity for those

(19)

19

who otherwise experienced precariousness and little opportunities ‘to be someone’ (Nooteboom, 2015, Malaby, 2010). Following this argument then questions whether people ‘naturally’ strive for security when engaging in risk behavior (c.f. Giddens, 1991), as security appears as an inter-subjective experience.

Moreover, the capacity to “think or act otherwise” (Tsekeris et al., 2015:16) and thus outside of a structurally defined socio-cultural horizon of possibilities (Appadurai, 2013), portrays a challenging risk undertaking because normative notions unfold as additional objects of risk (Giritli Nygren et al., 2014). From this vantage point, some individuals appear more privileged than other members of a social group in terms of being ascribed a broader horizon of possibilities (Appadurai, 2013), based on their socio-economic positioning. Risk interpretation and management thus mediate other prevailing structures of discursive, socio-cultural and institutional powers (Zinn, 2016), which may involve self-identity management (Giddens, 1991, Nooteboom, 2015, Walley, 2013). Considering the intersection of class and gender with risk management demonstrates that indeed “different reasonable ways to deal with risk and uncertainty” (Zinn, 2016: 348) co-exist between and within social groups. The experience of class, gender and age are therefore important parameters for my study on young, graduates’ doings of risk in Athens, Greece.

On the Performative Dimension of Risk

Risk is not only a socio-cultural construct (Boholm, 1996, Douglas, 2013) and “culturally and institutionally framed” (Zinn, 2016:362). Moreover, it portrays a performative practice as it is done “in the interaction with others based on social norms reflected in institutional inter-categorized risk objects creating normative risk behavior” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017:421). Considering that doing risk is intertwined with the doing of gender, age, and class reiterates the relation between Self-identity, Risk and Society (Giddens, 1991). Everyday (social) life consists of perpetual risk confrontations and therefore demands daily risk performances. Manufactured risks (i.e. health, economic or biographical risks) and external risks (i.e. ecological threats) need to be understood as adding up to everyday handlings of “smaller-scale” risks that are rooting in intersecting power structures. Hence, for some people risks may be experienced as impossible to undo as their situated horizon of possibilities (Appadurai, 2013) limits their capacity to aspire (Appadruai, 2013) and to “think and act differently” (Tsekeris et al., 2015:16). People who experience everyday life as “a chronic crisis” (Vigh, 2008:14), however, do find ways to cope with high stakes of uncertainty,

(20)

20

though in less effective ways (Vigh, 2008, Giritli Nygren et al., 2017). Giritli Nygren and colleagues termed these approaches redoing risk: “reproducing risk but reshaping accountability structures” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017:423). Considering that unpredictability and uncertainty are part and parcel of (modern) existence in general (Giddens, 1991), illuminates doing risk as an everyday practice.

On Collaborative Risk Management and Hope/lessness

Considering that doing risk refers to the socio-political and performative character of risk, shifts attention to interactive approaches of risk management. The shift towards focusing on social forms of risk engagement has been endorsed over the last years (Giritli Nygren et al, 2016, Brown, 2016, Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016) and I aim to further emphasize its theoretical potential. Hence, the following sections review relevant risk research regarding interactive risk management which will illuminate further the link between risk and hope. In this way, the last key concept of doing risk will be further elaborated.

Several scholars emphasized the productive potential of collaborative, interactive approaches to deal with risk and uncertainty (Brown, 2016, Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016, Goldstein, 2003). For instance, Brown identified that people who find themselves together in normatively assessed ‘hopeless’ situations, may commonly engage in practices that “make certain futures and ways of categorizing thinkable while simultaneously (de)legitimizing and (in)authenticating practices of pursuing these futures” (Brown, 2016:335). These practices then can accomplish to “bracket-out” (Brown, 2015:4) normative risks and uncertainties in order to thus create a situation free from threat. While doing so, hope can be restored, which potentially supports the capacity to aspire (Appadurai, 2013) and thus stimulates undoings of risk (Giritli Nygren et al., 2016).

Also, Seppola-Edvardsen (2016) found that high stakes of uncertainties can be managed through interactive approaches, reiterating the important role of hope for risk management. For the scholar, sociality portrays a practice through which people could rework shared disillusioned future expectations by communicating shared future worries (Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016). So, similar to Brown (2016), Seppola-Edvardsen (2016) argues that people theoretically have the capacity to reimagine certain futures when engaging in reworking future horizons in interaction with each other. Interestingly, while Brown (2016) found that hope can be collaboratively regenerated through bracketing-out uncertainty, Seppola-Edvardsen (2016) argued that the more intense hopelessness and resignation is experienced,

(21)

21

the more an individual tends to draw to more estranged, and hence, less productive approaches (Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016). Hope thus appears as a pre-requisite to deal and as a means to cope with risk and uncertainty, and potentially is best maintained and/or regenerated through collaborative social practices.

On Risk-, Self-identity- and Emotion Management

Considering that expressions of hope portray the communication of personal feelings, requires an elaboration on the reflexive dynamic between social doings of risks and emotion management. Emotion management is based on internalized societal expectations and thus structure the expression of feelings in social situations (Hochschild, 1979). From Goffman’s (1961) and Hochschild’s vantage point (1979)13_{, people have the capacity to reflect and}

reflexively see themselves through the eyes of the Other. This process might result in self-stigmatizing processes, as an individual mediates feelings of exclusion when experiencing to not live up – or “feel up” – towards the expectations associated to individuals of a certain social group (Goffman, 1961). This reflexive self-identification with normative notions, and the mediation of (unequal) power relations, thus shape the expression of emotions, putting central self-identity performances. Hence, people’s expressions of hope/lessness need to be situated in order to grasp the triangulation between interactive doings of risk and emotion- and self-identity-management.

The relationship between emotion- and risk-management was further developed by Goldstein (2003), who also emphasized the potential of interactive coping strategies for people to deal with ‘hopeless’ situations. Interestingly, the scholar found that joking portrays a social practice through which people could deal with self-stigmatizing and -harming experiences resulting from their inter-subjectively assessed ‘hopeless’ situation. To explain, joking about a ‘hopeless’ situation makes possible to communicate and release emotions that are otherwise difficult to share, as they point to personal discontents and suffering. Simultaneously, the exchange of jokes provides a communal, temporary opportunity to deal with the absurdity of high stakes of uncertainty and (physical) threats (Goldstein, 2003). Hence, Goldstein identified joking as an interactive practice capable of (covertly) resisting to

13_“_{Rules seem to govern how people try or try not to feel in ways “appropriate to the situation” (Goffman,}

1961) […] conventions of feeling (i.e. what one is supposed to feel) are used in social exchange between individuals. Individuals operate their exchanges according to a prior sense of what is owed and owing. Individuals see themselves as being owed as owing gestures of emotion work, and they exchange such gestures” (Hochschild, 1979:552).

(22)

22

suppression and exclusion and, potentially generating bonds between people (Goldstein, 2003). Following this argument reiterates the link between hope/lessness, risk and self-identity (Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016, Brown 2016), and the practical and theoretical potential of collaborative risk management.

I have now theorized the relation between Self-identity, Risk and Society and emphasized an intersectional perspective on risk-interpretation, -experience and -management. Furthermore, I have pointed out the necessity of studying individual and interactive approaches of risk management in order to dismantle the socio-economic and -political sources of the Self-concept and of performative (un)doings of risk. In this way, this theoretical framework provides the necessary basis for my analysis on young graduate’s (un)doings of risk, in relation to their socio-economic realities and its intersection with class and gender, in Athens, Greece. Considering that the economic crisis in Greece had been identified to have produced increasingly precarious labour market conditions (see Chapter 2), Greek societies can be understood as having undergone stark transformations. Whether this socio-economic transformation generated higher risks of prolonging the transition to full employment and independence for young, highly educated people, will be answered in this thesis. Moreover, I will provide insights into participants’ different sense-makings of societal change and new risks, their situated experiences of change and its impact on their self-identities, as well as how they deal with new risks and uncertainties in their everyday lives.

Hence, I present the research question of this thesis:

How do young, metropolitans (with a graduate degree) do and undo risk in relation to their socio-economic realities and its intersection with gender, age and class?

• How do they make sense of socio-economic change and new risks?

•_{How did they experience socio-economic change and new risks in their everyday} lives? How do these experiences differ in its intersection with gender, age and class?

(23)

23 3.3 Conceptualization: Theoretical Themes

In accordance with the reviewed literature, I perceive self-identity, risk and doing risk as essential theoretical themes for a nuanced study on (un)doings of risk in the socio-economically changing context of Athens. I have elaborated on the link between risk-interpretation and -management, and self-identity management, as well as on the situated and intersubjective experience of risk and security. The following conceptualization of the introduced theoretical themes guided the collection of my data and my analysis, and emphasizes an intersectional perspective on risk and doings of risk.

Self-identity

Considering that risk interpretation and experience are shaped by the world view an individual associate her/himself to (Boholm, 1996) and by her/his situatedness (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017), a conceptualization of self-identity is required. Self-identity portrays a relational, multi-facetted entity. People’s self-identifications and self-performances shift across contexts and time, but the maintenance of self-identity depends on experiencing biographical synchronicity (Giddens, 1991, Tafarodi, 2008, Habermas et al., 2014). Through social

interaction, identity narratives materialize and are (re)constructed (Goffman, 1961). The more in sync the reactions of Others are with one’s self-understanding, the more coherent the sense of self is experienced (Goffman, 1961, Giddens, 1991). This definition of identity thus postulates a certain stability in the individual’s environment, so that normative notions (i.e. gender, class, age) associated with self-identity can further be performed without experiencing identity disruptions (Giddens, 1991, Tafarodi, 2008, Habermas et al., 2014). Therefore, my

study on the experience and interpretation of ‘risk’ puts central “the social sources of the self-concept and the role of power and politics in the construction of narrative identities” (Ezzy, 1998:239). This conceptualization thus also emphasizes an intersectional perspective to understand the relation between Self-identity, Risk and Society.

Risk

In accordance with the reviewed risk work, I understand risks as socio-cultural constructions and as situated phenomena (Boholm, 1996, Girili Nygren et al., 2014 & 2016, Douglas, 2013). Moreover, grand risks, introduced by modernity, prevail (Giddens, 1991), though further transformed (Standing, 2012), and need to be understood as intersecting with gender, age, class and ethnicity, each potentially shaping risk interpretation and experience (Giritli

(24)

24

Nygren, 2016, Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016). Moreover, people reflexively make sense of risk and uncertainty as they are “mediated by subjects through a web of social and cultural norms and power relations” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017: 421). Hence, studying interpretations of risks need to take into consideration socio-cultural discursive and institutionally processes, as well as, situated experiences, in order to generate a nuanced analysis on risk. Please note, I perceive the Greek crisis as a grand risk as it restructured socio-economic and political structures over the last decade and since the Greek economy is embedded in the global economic system (see Chapter 2).

(Un)Doing Risk

(Un)doing(s) of risk intersect with the doings of i.e. gender, class and age, and thus need to be understood as situated, context dependent and, ultimately, performed. (Un)doing risk then portrays an everyday practice. I rely on Giritly Nygren’s and colleagues’ conceptualization of (un)doing risk (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017), which people apply reflexively and contextually.

• doing risk = normative risk performance (“risk is done when it is talked about, acted upon and used, in its context” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017:423))

•_{redoing risk = semi-normative risk performance (“reproducing risk but} reshaping accountability structures” (Giritli Nygren et a.l, 2017:423))

• undoing risk = challenging normative risk performative (“disrupting and making risk irrelevant” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017:423))

While undoing risk can produce new risks but makes the tackled risk “irrelevant” (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017), redoing risk exemplifies approaches that challenge but potentially reproduce risk. Furthermore, I count the capacity to aspire (Appadurai, 2013) and to “think and act differently” (Tsekeris et al., 2015:16) as exemplifying approaches of undoing risk, while bracketing-out risk (Brown, 2016) illustrates redoing of risk as uncertainty may indeed be temporarily suppressed but infinitely not be undone.

(25)

25

4 Methodology: Studying ‘(Un)Doings’ of Risk in Athens, Greece

My research on doings of risk portrays a case study (Bryman, 2016) since it was conducted in the specific metropolitan and (post-)crisis context of Athens and focused on young people with a graduate degree. Lasting approximately five months, I translated a qualitative, grounded theory research design into practice, focusing on the inter-subjective risk-interpretation, -experience and -management of young people. This chapter details my interpretative research design and methodological choices, emphasizing the triangulation between methodology, analysis and ethics (Bourdieu, 1996, Brown et al., 2019, Markham, 2005). I will firstly introduce the setting and the research population. Secondly, I will elaborate on interviewing and participant observation as my main data collection tools, including their implications.

4.1 Setting and Population

Setting

This research was conducted between August and December 2018 in Athens, Greece. I chose Greece’s capital as it provided fruitful grounds for an analysis of young graduates’ (un)doings of risk regarding precarious realities. Athens hosts several universities and is home to many of their graduates, who have (theoretically) experienced the impact of the crisis on the labour market (see Chapter 2). I spent a lot of time in two central, residential neighbourhoods where most of the participants lived (including me) and socialized. This enabled me to become acquainted with the urban lifestyles of the graduates and their daily routines.

Research Population and Sampling

I selected the participants through a stratified snowball sampling approach, meaning that demographics (age, gender) and socioeconomics (class-background) portrayed the stratification categories of my sample (Robinson, 2014). This sample approach required to create contacts in the field in order to generate as representative a sample as possible. Fortunately, I could get establish access to three friend groups, through three key-informants (Robinson, 2014). These informants then helped me to get in touch with people that fit the inclusion categories of my sample.

(26)

26

In total, 17 people (9 females, 8 males, ranging from 28 to 39 years old) participated in my research. All held a graduate degree and have lived in Athens at least for the last four years. Furthermore, I ensured the stratification of class-background as people with a higher and lower socio-economic positioning were included in the sample. While I will discuss the limitations of my sample in the concluding chapter, I perceive the participants to a certain extent as representative of young metropolitans living in Greece, due to their age, educational background and urban location of their homes.

4.2 Methodology

The methodological choices I made follow from my understanding of risk as a construct and a relational entity that is (re)produced through interaction with Others, and ultimately is performed (see Chapter 3). I combined interviewing with participant observation as it has been endorsed as a promising methodology to grasp the complex texture of risks and uncertainty (Brown et al., 2019, Girili Nygren et al., 2017, Seppola-Edvardsen, 2016).

In the following sections, I will, firstly, elaborate on the accounts of life histories and interviews on daily security, which includes a critical reflection of these interview conducts. Secondly, the premises and pitfalls of participant observations will be discussed, further emphasizing the triangulation of methods, analysis and ethics.

Interviewing

I conducted, recorded and transcribed 34 interviews. During the interviews (and participant observations), fieldnotes were taken to keep track of emotional and bodily expressions, as well as of key events (O’Reilly, 2012). Interviewing all participants twice over the course of 5 months and collecting additional material through informal conversations, facilitated an in-depth understanding of their situated interpretations and experiences of precarious living conditions and its impact on their well-being.

Informal Conversations: Adapting to the Field’s Politics:

In the first weeks of my fieldwork I used the passive interviewing approach (O’Reilly, 2012), consisting of informally conversing with the participants in public settings about my research interest. This strategy enabled me to learn about the acceptable ways of socializing and tone of speech among young people in the capital, before starting with formal interviews

(27)

27

(O’Reilly, 2012). Moreover, informal conversations supported the creation of a relationship between the participants and me and ensured an informed consent (O’Reilly, 2012, Bryman, 2016).

Life Histories: Transitioning to Adulthood in Greece

As my ethnography progressed and my relationship with the participants improved, I conducted one-to-one life history interviews. I let the participants choose the interview setting, to ensure a comfortable and safe space in which they could trust me with their personal stories (O’Reilly, 2012). Interestingly, the participants’ choices varied, and the interviews were conducted in cafés, parks or in their homes (same as with daily security interviews).

Life history interviews were theoretically motivated but brought about analytical and ethical issues. Theoretically, the life history interview gave a voice to the interviewees to describe the contextuality of the place they found themselves in and how they came into this place (Agar,1980, Bourdieu, 1996). Therefore, its account portrayed an opportunity for me to get a glimpse into the participants’ (changing) socio-economic situatedness along with their transitions towards adulthood, and for the participants to benefit from the “joy of expression” (Bourdieu, 1991:611)14_{. Moreover, through these accounts I could learn about how they}

wanted to present themselves in interaction with me and regarding the interview setting. In the interview setting, people tend to present themselves in a well-reasoned way and thereby perform a self-identity that could appear more coherent than sensed by the person her/himself (Brown et al., 2019). On the one hand, life histories thus also proofed a tool to get insights into the self-identity management of the interviewees, which is of great value considering the relationship between risk and self-identity (Giddens, 1991). On the other hand, the production of this specific data cannot stand alone as its analysis requires considering that interviews are “breaching experiments, especially by recognizing their staged and synthetic basis” (Brinkman in Brown et al., 2019:8). Hence, my methodological choices had direct effects on the nature of the collected data.

Methodologically, the life histories entailed another implication which needs to be addressed. Initially, I guided the life histories chronologically from the participants’ transition from high school to university and from university into the labour market. In doing so, I thus

14_{The joy of expression describes the positive evaluation of a researcher’s interest in an individual’s personal life}

by the participant as it portrays an opportunity for people to make themselves heard and to feel (temporarily) recognized (Bourdieu, 1996).

(28)

28

imposed etic time and risk categorizations on the participants’ life-phase transitions, which was problematic because it limited grasping socio-cultural framings regarding these (Brown et al., 2019, Agar, 1980). Moreover, letting preconceptions guide the interview portrays – from an etic perspective – an intrusive, violent act (Brown et al., 2019, Bourdieu, 1996, Scheper-Hughes, 2000) as it privileged me in controlling the interviews’ content and process, and thus manifested asymmetrical power relations inherent to interviewing (Markham, 2005, Bourdieu, 1996, Brown et al., 2019, O’Reilly, 2012, Bryman, 2016).

So, after the conduction of the first two life histories (which were later excluded from the analysis), I decided to leave the time theme construction to inquire socio-cultural perceptions on life-phase transitions and its entailed risks, as well as integrating the participants in controlling the course of their life histories. In this way, the idiosyncratic schema of the interviewee’s personal story and socio-cultural schemas could be explored (Agar, 1980) and the ethical dilemma more rendered. The inquiry of socio-cultural ‘conventional’ notions was further supported through my position as the ‘outsider’ (Agar, 1980, O’Reilly, 2012). While life histories thus generated a window into the intersubjective interpretation and experience of socio-economic change, doings of risk cannot be studied through solely relying on life histories because it “misses that results relate to the ordinary social world through which the informant moves” (Agar, 1980:234).

Interview on Daily Security Experience: Living under Conditions of ‘the Greek Crisis’

Alongside my growing knowledge of the field and the participants’ lifeworlds, I decided to conduct ‘daily security’ interviews, to develop an understanding on ‘what’ security means to the participants and ‘how’ secure they experienced their present everyday lives to be. Accordingly, these interviews generated insights into the participants’ experiences of risk (management) and uncertainty and their intersection with gender, age and class. For analytical and ethical reasons, I applied two strategies for conducting these lengthier interview sessions: Firstly, I integrated an inter-active mind-map activity into the interview’s procedure to slowly build up the discourse to an interview of intimate and sensitive nature, and to provide room for emic interpretations of (in)security. The playful mind-map activity stimulated the participants to share personal associations and experiences, and actively integrated them into my research. Moreover, during this activity, I could also share my own interpretations of security, including my own insecurities. Bourdieu would probably disagree as he stressed self-forgetfulness as an approach to balance out ethical and analytical implications of

(29)

29

interviewing (Bourdieu, 1996). However, from my experience, appearing vulnerable too, not only helped the interviewees to feel more comfortable speaking about their worries and struggles, moreover, in doing so, I hoped to reciprocate and maintain their trust.

Secondly, the semi-structured interview questions were theoretically informed because I sought answers to the mediation of (post-)crisis socio-economic conditions, evaluated possibilities (Appadurai, 2013) and aspirations (see Chapter 3). These questions touched upon sensitive topics, i.e. the evaluation of one’s financial situation, and therefore, I reminded the participants that they did not have to answer and did not probe when sensing unease. Additionally, after the interview I asked the interviewees how they felt about the interview, and fortunately, only one interviewee expressed feelings of deep discomfort. She explained to me that recalling her experience of losing her job brought about the pain she experienced in that time, but ultimately did not experience my questions as intrusive.

All in all, the daily security interviews helped me to understand how the participants experienced (post-)crisis socio-economic conditions, its impact on their everyday lives and their well-being. Nevertheless, the findings of these interviews demonstrated that the interview conduct indeed informs interviewee’s answers (Brown et al., 2019, Bourdieu, 1996) because they deviated from the findings collected through informal conversations and observations. Hence, combining interviewing with participant observation eventually enabled me to conduct a nuanced analysis on (un)doings of risk.

Participant Observation

Considering that risk contains a performative dimension (Giritli Nygren et al., 2017), participant observation portrayed a necessary additional methodological choice, generating new insights into doings of risk (ibid.).

Firstly, through participant observation I collected valuable data that enabled me to link interpretations and experiences of risk to individual and interactive (un)doings of risk (Girili Nygren et al., 2017). Through my engagement in the participants’ lives, i.e. socializing, grocery shopping, or family visits, I could acquire an understanding how everyday risks and uncertainties were handled. Moreover, the interview accounts conducted during fieldwork strengthened my understanding of observed interactions and individual performances, and vice versa, and thereby enabled me to reflexively identify links and patterns (O’Reilly, 2012,

(30)

30

Brown et al., 2019). In this way, my observations facilitated more context-specific and practice-oriented questions within the interviews, enhancing the validity of my data (Brown et al., 2019). Moreover, my presence and interest in their lives increasingly allowed me to ask personal questions (O’Reilly, 2012) because our regular engagements strengthened our relationships and generated mutual trust (Bourdieu, 1996, O’Reilly, 2012). I also learned about personal sensitivities which I considered during the interview sessions.

Secondly, while participant observation led to the generation of mutual trust and enhanced my understanding of the participants’ lifeworlds, it also entailed ethical and epistemological implications. To reiterate, researchers are imposing the object of analysis on the field and its subjects (Markham, 2005, Brown et al., 2019) which portrays “a certain amount of symbolic and interpretative violence” (Scheper-Hughes in O’Reilly, 2012:83). Therefore, I asked participants for feedback on my observations’ interpretations, which emphasized the value of the research subjects’ point(s) of view and the cruciality of integrating subjects into the research’s progress. Also, being transparent about my research was of great value since they could assist me in getting in touch with people they perceived “interesting” for my research, as well as making it possible to exchange interpretations. Furthermore, I did not select particular social activities to participate in. Instead, I partook in the course of the participants’ everyday lives, in order to avoid developing a set of observations limited to my preconception on risk practices (Brown et al., 2019, Markham, 2005). Nevertheless, the following analysis needs to be understood as influenced by my presence in the field and my interactions with the field’s subjects (Markham, 2005). Hence, a critical reflection on my positionality is required15_.

I was not only perceived as a researcher, but also as a young, female graduate student from Germany, a stranger and a guest. Considering that “perception always involves embodiment” (Markham, 2005:809), participants’ perceptions of me portrayed a vocal point of the data collection and the analysis, as they shaped the nature of my interactions with the participants and thus informed my observations. As I critically reflected on this implication throughout my research, participant observation remained a fruitful approach because it generated insights into socio-cultural notions, associated with sociality, hospitality and feeling rules (which is intertwined with doings of self-identity regimes (see Chapter 3)).

The future 'at risk' - the present 'in crisis' : on young metropolitans' everyday (un)doings of risk and uncertainty in Athens, Greece