DEALING WITH DIVERSITY Challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods
ANOUK TERSTEEG
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 1 Assessment committee: Prof. dr. M.J. Dijst Prof. dr. T. Maloutas Prof. dr. S. Musterd Prof. dr. M. Raco Prof. dr. E.B. Zoomers
isbn 978-94-028-0822-3 nur 900
© A.K. Tersteeg, Utrecht 2017 Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book.
Cover illustration by lakogal, depositphotos.com Cover page and lay-out by Jesse Nortier Printing by Ipskamp printing, Enschede
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 2 DEALING WITH DIVERSITY Challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods
OMGAAN MET DIVERSITEIT Uitdagingen en kansen voor sociale cohesie in achterstandsbuurten
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 5 december 2017 des middags te 4.15 uur
door
Anouk Kathelijne Tersteeg
geboren op 19 februari 1988 te Wageningen
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 3 Promotoren: Prof. dr. P. Hooimeijer Prof. dr. R. van Kempen†
Copromotor: Dr. G.S. Bolt
The thesis was accomplished with financial support from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under the Grant Agreement No 319970 – DIVERCITIES. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 4 Acknowledgements
This thesis was written within the framework of the EU-research project DIVERCITIES (2013-2017), which I was invited to join by Ronald van Kempen and Gideon Bolt in the summer of 2013. Ronald was a founder and the project leader of DIVERCITIES. He was also my promotor until February 2016 when he suddenly passed away. Although he was only shortly in my life, he meant a lot to me. He has been vital for the content of this dissertation. It was with Ronald that the aim and structure of this research, and the foundations of the first two empirical chapters were developed. I am very grateful that I was able to learn from such a sincere and bright mind. I am also very sad that he cannot see the final result: I am sure he would be happy for me. Gideon was my co-promotor and has been very important to me too. Gideon, thank you for always having confidence in me and for your apt and constructive feedback. Your terrific sense of humour opens doors. Above all, you are one of the most selfless academics I know, which is refreshing in an increasingly competitive academic work environment. Pieter Hooimeijer took over as my promotor, when still a lot of work had to be done. Pieter, I am very grateful you were willing to take on this task. Thank you for your guidance and confidence in me. Your supervision was crucial in finalising this thesis, particularly when it comes to positioning the dissertation in academic and policy debates.
This work would not exist without the cooperation of all the research participants – residents, policy makers, leaders of local initiatives and other professionals – who offered me their time and stories. Thank you for your openness. For the residents, I hope this book contributes to a more nuanced understanding of social cohesion in the neighbourhoods in which you live.
Besides Ronald, Gideon and Pieter, I would like to sincerely thank the other researchers with whom I was lucky to collaborate on developing the empirical chapters of the dissertation: Fenne Pinkster, Ympkje Albeda, Kirsten Visser, Melike Peterson, Stijn Oosterlynck and Gert Verschraegen. Fenne, your inspirational and critical lectures and supervision during my studies at the University of Amsterdam fuelled my interest in urban questions of social cohesion. You equipped me with the tools and knowledge that I needed to develop this dissertation. Thank you very much. Ympkje, I greatly enjoy working together. Thank you for being such
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 5 a good theorist. I think we are a great research team. Kirsten, you were there from the start of this project. Thank you for your kindness and assurance. I value that I could always pop in to discuss work. Melike, I am grateful for your help conducting interviews in Feijenoord in Rotterdam.
Being part of DIVERCITIES was a great pleasure. The project gave me insight into how urban diversity is governed throughout urban Europe and Canada, and allowed me to put my fieldwork in the Netherlands into international perspective. Working within the consortiums international team of researchers gave me inspiration and taught me about institutional and cultural diversity in research practices. I would like to thank everyone who was involved in the project; particularly my fellow junior researchers and communication advisors Melissa Lee and David Wills, who were indispensable. Donya Ahmadi, thank you for your companionship and kind-heartedness. I very much admire your perseverance. Rikke Skovgaard Nielsen, you are the best organised person I know. You wisely advised me to safeguard time for my dissertation within the project. Thank you for your continuous support. I had the opportunity to visit Rikke, Anne Winther Beckman and Vigdis Blach in Copenhagen for a few weeks. Thank you for being great sparring partners, particularly with the sixth chapter of this thesis, and thank you for making me feel so welcome in your lovely Copenhagen.
I am further grateful to my former colleagues at the Department of Human Geography and Planning at Utrecht University for making my research possible. From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank my ‘kantoorbuddies’ Marijke Noorbergen-Jansen, Ineke Deelen and Nynke Tieben-Burgers. If it were not for your daily support, talks, laughter’s as well as incidental consolation, finishing this thesis would have been very, very difficult. Thank you for your companionship, your readiness to listen and your valuable advices. In your own ways, the three of you taught me to take pride in my work, while keeping in mind that life is so much more than work. Bianca Szytniewski, Marianne de Beer, Nico Dogterom, Marielle Zill and Zidan Mao, you were also very important to me. Thank you for all the friendly and reassuring talks – occasionally over coffee and lunch – through which I got to know you. Gerald Mollenhorst, Ilse van Liempt and Veronique Schutjens, I greatly benefitted from the encouraging talks with you about research as well as about personal development.
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 6 Writing the thesis would not have been possible without the continuous support of my dearest friends Ambi, Floor, Dimitri, Monique, the ‘Wageningen Ladies’ Lisanne and Szilvia, and my ‘Bèta-Gamma Gappies’ Sarah, Dana, Heleen, Ronald, Thomas, and my Glasgow friends Anna and Collette. I am also blessed with a very loving and supportive family and family-in-law. Karin and Michael, Joost and Monique, Matthijs, Esmé and Uli, Thijs and Maaike, Wouter and Jum, Gitte, Omi and Oma, Mieke and Nico, Sjors and Erik, thank you for teaching me to believe in myself and for helping me achieve my goals. My deepest thanks are to the other half to my heart and my best friend, Guus. You are always right beside me, for better or worse. Thank you for always believing in me and encouraging me to follow my dreams.
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 7 514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 8 Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Policy background: discourses on deprived neighbourhoods 4 1.3 The academic debate on social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods 7 1.4 Research questions 9 1.5 Research design 13 1.5.1 Research areas 13 1.5.2 Methods 14 1.5.3 Data collection and analysis 15 1.6 Thesis outline 16
2. GOVERNING URBAN DIVERSITY: INTERCULTURAL AND ASSIMILATIONIST APPROACHES IN ROTTERDAM 21 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 Diversity, interculturalism and mainstreaming 24 2.3 Research methods 26 2.4 Diversity as problem or strength? 27 2.4.1 The Rotterdam approach 27 2.4.2 The approach of grass-root initiatives 28 2.5 Mainstreaming 30 2.5.1 Mainstreaming is the motto 30 2.5.2 Mainstreaming in practice 32 2.6 Going beyond integration? 35 2.6.1 Integration or assimilation? 35 2.6.2 Assimilation and housing policy 37 2.6.3 Towards more overt assimilation 39 2.7 Conclusion 40
3. BEYOND THE MIDDLE CLASSES: NEIGHBOURHOOD CHOICE AND SATISFACTION IN HIGHLY DIVERSE CONTEXTS 45 3.1 Introduction 46 3.2 Living in highly diverse neighbourhoods 47 3.2.1 Class differences 48 3.2.2 The role of ethnicity 50
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 9 3.3 Research in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Rotterdam and Antwerp 52 3.4 Neighbourhood choice 54 3.4.1 The availability of affordable housing 55 3.4.2 Bonds with family and friends 55 3.4.3 A neighbourhood without a majority group 56 3.5 Neighbourhood satisfaction 57 3.5.1 Diverse local weak ties 58 3.5.2 A diversity of experiences and exchanges 59 3.5.3 A diversity of facilities and amenities 60 3.5.4 A social climate that tolerates differences 61 3.6 Conclusion 62
4. SYMBOLIC BOUNDARY MAKING IN SUPER-DIVERSE DEPRIVED NEIGHBOURHOODS 69 4.1 Introduction 70 4.2 Symbolic boundary making 71 4.3 Data and methods 76 4.4 Making symbolic boundaries to demarcate social groups 78 4.5 Re-position residents around existing symbolic boundaries 83 4.6 Symbolic boundary making and everyday social interaction 86 4.7 Conclusion 88
5. YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE FUTURE? COMPARING THE EVERYDAY PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF ADULTS AND YOUTHS IN HIGHLY DIVERSE CONTEXTS 95 5.1 Introduction 96 5.2 Theoretical background 98 5.2.1 Perceptions and practices of diversity in highly diverse neighbourhoods 98 5.2.2 Young people versus adults 100 5.3 Methods 102 5.4 Results 104 5.4.1 The uses of neighbourhood space 104 5.4.2 Social networks 108 5.4.3 Perceptions of diversity 112 5.5 Discussion 116
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 10 6. DO BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER IN HIGHLY DIVERSE CONTEXTS? COMPOSITION AND SPATIALITY OF WEAK TIES IN A ROTTERDAM NEIGHBOURHOOD 123 6.1 Introduction 124 6.2 Theoretical background 126 6.2.1 Locality-based personal networks: how and why? 126 6.2.2 The spatiality of locality-based personal networks 128 6.3 Research context and approach 131 6.4 Locality-based weak ties in Feijenoord 132 6.5 The spatiality of locality-based personal networks 133 6.5.1 Sharing spaces with neighbours 134 6.5.2 Sharing space in local institutions 138 6.5.3 Dogs and children in public spaces 140 6.5.4 Barriers to diverse locality-based social ties 142 6.5.5 Overview of how social relations are shaped in spaces 143 6.6 Conclusions 143
7. “US UP HERE AND THEM DOWN THERE”: HOW DESIGN, MANAGEMENT, AND NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES SHAPE SOCIAL DISTANCE IN A MIXED-TENURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 151 7.1 Introduction 152 7.2 Living with differences in fine-grained tenure-mix 154 7.2.1 Housing Design 156 7.2.2 Management Practices 157 7.2.3 Neighborhood Facilities 158 7.3 Research design and methodology 159 7.4 Experiences of social distance between resident groups 163 7.5 Housing design 165 7.6 Management practices 169 7.7 Neighborhood facilities 173 7.8 Discussion and conclusion 175
8. CONCLUSION 183 8.1 Introduction 184 8.2 Summary of chapter findings 186 8.3 The main research question answered 191 8.3.1 Challenges of living amidst diversity 191
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 11 8.3.2 Dealing with the challenges of diversity 192 8.3.3 Opportunities for positive relations across differences 194 8.4 Theoretical implications and reflections 195 8.4.1 Rethinking conceptualisations of urban diversity 196 8.4.2 The importance of weak ties for social cohesion in deprived areas 197 8.4.3 Diversity research: beyond the middle classes 198 8.4.4 Deconstructing the ‘black box’ of neighbourhood 199 8.5 Policy implications 200 8.5.1 Towards a comprehensive rhetoric of urban diversity 201 8.5.2 Facilitating spaces for exchanges across differences 201 8.5.3 Adjusting expectations of the middle classes 202 8.5.4 Inclusive management practices 203
NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING 209
CURRICULUM VITAE 219
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 12 514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 13 514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 14 1 INTRODUCTION
1
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 15 1.1 Background
Cities have always been centres of wealth and poverty. They are places of opportunity: providing prospects for social mobility through education and work, both for people at the lower-end of the socioeconomic ladder and for people with a medium or high socioeconomic position. This is why many people live in or near cities. Yet affordable homes are not distributed evenly over urban space. Poor people and recent migrants often segregate in specific areas. In the Netherlands, affordable housing is mostly social housing for low and lower middle income households, which comprises about 30% of the housing stock. The owner-occupied and private rental market which respectively comprises about 60% and 10% of the housing market are hardly accessible to lower income groups, particularly in urban areas. Although the Netherlands has relatively low income segregation levels (Musterd and Van Gent 2016), most Dutch cities have neighbourhoods with a concentration of affordable housing. This is for instance the case in many parts of Feijenoord in Rotterdam, where most of this research was located.
Since the 1980s, Dutch policy makers have worried about the negative impact of the concentration of disadvantaged groups on social cohesion in these neighbourhoods. Amongst others, the neighbourhoods are thought to lack positive role models and residents are thought to lack ‘healthy’ social networks of people with more opportunities in life (Kleinhans 2004). The neighbourhoods have been associated with illegal activities, criminality, poor educational performances and school dropout (Visser 2014). A second concern of policymakers has been the spatial concentration of minority ethnic groups in deprived urban neighbourhoods, who are thought to settle in these parts of the cities because of the affordable housing stock and the presence of co-ethnics, family and friends (Wilson and Portes 1980). The concentration of minority ethnic groups as well as decreasing number of white Dutch has been thought to negatively affect social cohesion (Van Kempen and Bolt 2009).
Dutch policy makers have attributed the variety of ‘problems’ in deprived neighbourhoods to the ‘unilateral housing stock’. Hence, a dominant intervention in deprived urban areas has been to diversify the housing stock as to house more households with a higher socioeconomic position, which in practice are mostly
2
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 16 white Dutch (Smets and Den Uyl 2008). This has been done through restructuring programmes, in the context of which exclusive private rent and owner-occupied housing has been built and social housing has been privatised or demolished.
A large body of research has assessed these interventions. Both within and outside of the Netherlands, they did not find clear evidence for the intended results: the interventions generally have not increased social cohesion among disadvantaged residents in these areas. More precisely, when it comes to local social networks, lower and higher income groups and ethnic communities were often found to live parallel lives. However, these studies have recently been criticised by the academic school of thought on super-diversity or hyper-diversity, of which Vertovec (2007; 2010) is the founding father. It is within this field of literature that the present study positions itself.
The dissertation examines how residents of deprived neighbourhoods face the challenges of living among diverse others and how they seize the opportunities for positive relations across differences. The purpose of this dissertation is to better inform academic and policy debates about the challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods, by addressing four research gaps.
First, in line with the literature on super-diversity and hyper-diversity we stress that the literature on social cohesion in deprived contexts needs to move beyond its predominant focus on socioeconomic and ethnic diversity, because residents differ and can connect with one another on many other dimensions as well, including age, activity patterns, attitudes, culture, religion, sexual identity, lifestyle, household type, legal status and migration history (Askins 2015; Hall 2015; Peterson 2016; Wessendorf 2014, 2016; Wise and Velayutham 2014; Ye 2016). This shift is needed all the more because social diversity in cities and neighbourhoods will only become more complex (Blommaert 2013; Tasan-Kok et al. 2013; Vertovec 2007 2010; Wessendorf 2014), also in the Dutch urban context (Crul 2016; Hoekstra 2017; Scholten and Van Breugel 2017).
Second, so far studies on social cohesion in deprived areas have largely focussed on social networks of family and friends - Grannovetter’s (1973) strong ties. Yet, social network studies indicate that weak ties of neighbours, colleagues and
3
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 17 acquaintances offer more opportunities for relations across differences than strong ties of family and friends (Kleinhans 2005; Mollenhorst et al. 2008). In order to ‘paint the whole social cohesion picture’ we thus need to know more about weak ties in these contexts.
Third, studies on the preferences for a diverse residential context (of a specific type) have predominantly focussed on (white) middle classes. This can be traced back to the work of Florida (2003; 2005) who first attributed this preference to middle classes. Many scholars have empirically contested his theory. Yet, in doing so, most have focussed on middle class households as well. Nonetheless, diversity is meaningful to all resident groups living in highly diverse contexts. Scholars have only recently started to explore how perceptions of diversity shape the neighbourhood preferences of those with less choice when it comes to their dwelling and neighbourhood (see for instance Wessendorf 2016).
Finally, much remains unclear about the spatiality of social relations in deprived contexts: when, where and under which conditions do social relations across differences develop? Quantitative studies have used standardised definitions of the neighbourhood, for instance a four or five digit postal code (Galster and Hedman 2013; Van Ham et al. 2012; Sharkey and Faber 2014), yet these cannot provide insight in this question.
1.2 Policy background: discourses on deprived neighbourhoods
The policy strategy to attract higher income households to deprived areas has been carried out in the Netherlands for different reasons. Two discourses can roughly be identified. The oldest one can be summarised asuplifting the poor: it focusses on improving the social position of disadvantaged residents in deprived areas. It gained importance in the 1980s, when cities witnessed an accumulation of social problems, including high unemployment and crime levels, drug abuse, youth gangs, large areas with poor quality housing, and a high proportion of people with low incomes and education levels. The problems were most severe in neighbourhoods with large concentrations of social housing. The first immigrants
4
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 18 with a low socioeconomic position (including labour migrants from Turkey and Morocco and their families, as well as refugees from Vietnam, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, and migrants from the former Dutch colonies), started to settle in these areas at the time. Residents who could afford to, mostly the white middle classes, moved out of the cities, reinforcing the process (Bolt et al. 2008).
The discourse of uplifting the poor assumes that social problems of lower- income groups can be solved by the presence of higher-income groups in their neighbourhood. This idea is for instance reflected in theBig Cities Policy (BCP), a large-scale integrated and area-based urban policy programme that was launched in 1994. It lasted until 2010 and was implemented in a total of 41 municipalities. The BCP attracted higher income households, which were in practice often white Dutch, to the most deprived urban areas through physical restructuring programmes (Van Meijeren and Ouwehand 2007). By giving the disadvantaged residents (including many with a minority ethnic background) the opportunity to connect with and learn from these middle classes, central and city governments, housing corporations and welfare institutions hoped to improve the socioeconomic position of these residents (VROM 1997).
A second more recent policy discourse underlying housing diversification strategies in deprived neighbourhoods might be coined making space for the middle classes because it takes the position of higher income households rather than lower income households as a starting point. In this discourse, it is the aim to attract more affluent households to the city, rather than a means to uplift the disadvantaged. The narrative has been present in Dutch urban policy since the 1990s and currently dominates many urban policies, most notably in Rotterdam. It views middle class households as the ideal inhabitants of cities. Together, the studies of Schinkel and Van den Berg (2011), Uitermark and Duyvendak (2008), Uitermark et al. (2007) and Van der Land (2005) identify three main reasons. First, middle classes depend less on the state for their welfare than lower income groups do, for instance when it comes to attracting high quality facilities and amenities. Second, policy makers appreciate that the presence of middle class households improves the reputation of a neighbourhood, raises property values and increases the competitive position of cities. Third, local authorities including government actors, housing corporations, welfare organisations and the police have more
5
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 19 control over neighbourhoods with relatively many middle class households. The spatial concentration of poor people ‘…negatively affects the ability of these actors to carry out routine tasks in poor districts, which include renting out, maintaining, and selling housing and preventing civil unrest. [Thus] …Governmental organisations and their partners lure the middle classes into disadvantaged areas with the purpose of civilising and controlling these neighbourhoods’ (Uitermark et al. 2007, p. 127).
The desire to attract middle class households to deprived neighbourhoods is reflected in policy rhetoric. At the city level in Rotterdam examples are the ‘strong shoulders, strong city’ policy programme, in which ‘strong shoulders’ are defined as middle class household and students (Tersteeg et al. 2017). As the pictures that accompany the policy text mostly include white Dutch, the City communicates that this group sets the example. At the neighbourhood level, for instance in Feijenoord, a making space for the middle classes discourse is reflected in expressions of civil servants about ‘improving’ or creating ‘better’ neighbourhoods by moving in middle class households, entrepreneurs and facilities – as witnessed while doing fieldwork for this dissertation. Other reflections of the policy discourse at the neighbourhood level are the significant cutbacks in governmental budgets for financial support and spaces for disadvantaged residents in deprived areas (Tersteeg et al. 2014). Since the 2000s, many community centres and libraries have been shut down in deprived neighbourhoods. Also, many courses and programmes aimed at stimulating the participation of low income groups and newcomers such as low-cost language courses have been replaced by paid courses (Geddes and Scholten 2016; Uitermark and Duyvendak 2005).
The attempts of policy makers to house more higher income groups in cities, particularly in deprived neighbourhoods, have been quite successful. Many middle class households have moved into deprived urban areas in the Netherlands, something that was unthinkable in the early 1990s. The shift from the first to the second policy discourse is part of a wider shift in urban policy in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe in which disadvantaged groups including newcomers to the city have increasingly been held accountable for their poor socioeconomic position (Raco 2013; Raco, Colomb and Kersten 2014; Schinkel and Van den Berg 2011; Uitermark et al. 2005).
6
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 20 1.3 The academic debate on social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods
In academia and in policy, also in the Netherlands, there is the perception that mixed-income neighbourhoods can improve social cohesion and the social mobility of disadvantaged and minority ethnic groups (Van Kempen and Bolt 2013). However, there is no clear empirical evidence of such an effect (e.g. Nast and Blokland 2014; Galster 2007; Kleinhans 2004; Van Kempen and Bolt 2013; Van Kempen and Wissink 2014). Most studies indicate that the presence of higher income groups in deprived neighbourhoods does not lead to social interactions between people with a low and high socioeconomic position (e.g. Bretherton and Pleace 2011; Van Kempen and Wissink 2014; Van Kempen and Bolt 2013; Van Miltenburg 2017). Two types of explanations can be found for this in the literature. First, different socioeconomic groups have different activity patterns (Van Kempen and Wissink 2014). People with a lower socioeconomic position generally depend more on their neighbourhood for daily activities including work, education, shopping, leisure and social activities and thus spend more time in their neighbourhood than those with a higher socioeconomic position (Van Beckhoven and van Kempen 2003). Furthermore, residents with a higher socioeconomic position appear quite selective when it comes to the use of local facilities and amenities, ‘gravitating’ ‘…to places that support their lifestyle and social identities…’ and actively avoiding neighbourhood spaces that encourage interactions across difference in these respects (Pinkster 2014, p. 810). This is for instance reflected in patterns of school choice among middle class parents which have led to ethnically segregated schools (Boterman 2013). Second, households with a higher socioeconomic position, often owner-occupiers, in deprived neighbourhoods are often newcomers. They have regularly moved into these neighbourhoods within the framework of urban restructuring programmes, which only started off in the 1990s. In other words, households with a low socioeconomic position may simply have had more time to develop neighbourhood-based relationships than those with a higher socioeconomic position. Studies such as Lelévrier’s (2013) indicate that ‘…mixing works best if owners are from the area or have lived there for a long time’ (Bolt and Van Kempen 2013, p. 394).
Parallel to the debate on income diversity, there has been an academic debate
7
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 21 on social cohesion in contexts of ethnic diversity. While income diversity has been framed as an opportunity for social cohesion, research on ethnic diversity has mostly focussed on challenges of ethnic diversity for social cohesion. In the Netherlands, two seemingly opposite theories are present that are both inspired by research in US cities. Inspired by the work of Putnam (2007), the first theory reads that high levels of ethnic diversity in a neighbourhood lower interethnic trust and lead ethnic communities to ‘hunker down’ and live parallel lives (see e.g. Bailey et al. 2012). The second theory seems to be an interpretation of Wilson’s (1987; 1996) work on US inner city ‘ghetto’s’. Wilson (1987) connected the existence of urban neighbourhoods with large concentrations of poor, Afro- American people to the ‘flight’ of middle class people to American suburban areas in the 1970s and 1980s. His theory has been interpreted as a plea for the presence of white Dutch middle class residents in deprived areas by Dutch academics and policy makers, as they equalised the segregation of this one ethnic group, Afro- Americans in US ‘ghetto’s’, to the segregation of multiple minority ethnic groups in Dutch deprived neighbourhoods. Indeed, making the dichotomous distinction between white ethnic Dutch and other ethnic (Dutch) groups is deep-rooted in academic, political and public discourses in the Netherlands. It is reflected in the widespread use of the dichotomous classification of ‘inhabitants with a migration background’ and ‘inhabitants with a Dutch background’, by academic researchers and amongst others by the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy. Although according to the first theory the perceived ‘problem’ is too much ethnic diversity and according to the second theory it is too little diversity of a specific kind – the white Dutch - both theories have led to the understanding that diversity in deprived areas is problematic for social cohesion here.
The recent academic literature onsuper-diversity (e.g. Vertovec 2007; 2010) or hyper-diversity (Tasan-Kok, et al. 2013) sheds new light on the debates about diversity and social cohesion in deprived areas. It’s main argument is that urban societies are becoming diverse and dynamic in ever more complex ways, not only in terms of ethnicity and class, but also regarding lifestyles, attitudes, cultures, legal status, identities, etcetera. Due to increasingly complex global migration flows, the rise of socio-spatial inequalities, increasingly mobile urban populations, as well as technological developments, people increasingly belong to multiple,
8
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 22 altering social groups. These observations do not only pose challenges for policy making – how to make policy when traditional demographic categories of for instance age, income and ethnicity do not apply? – they also pose important challenges for conducting research, particularly research on social perceptions and relations. Key questions are: where to draw the line between social groups when defining research populations and which variables – thus dimensions of difference - to focus on? Scholars have only recently started to study what complex urban diversity means for questions of social cohesion. Much remains unclear about how people in highly diverse neighbourhoods perceive, experience and practice local diversity. This dissertation attempts to provide insight.
1.4 Research questions
The aim of this dissertation is to better inform academic and policy debates about the challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods. The main research question reads: How do residents of deprived neighbourhoods face the challenges of living among diverse others? How do the residents seize the opportunities for positive relations across difference?
To answer the main question, six research questions will be empirically investigated. Every research question will be dealt with in a separate chapter.
1. How is diversity dealt with in urban policies and neighbourhood initiatives in Rotterdam and what can be learned from grass-roots initiatives for the governance of urban diversity?
Chapter 2 provides the institutional context for the other empirical chapters in this thesis. It gives insight in the ways in which urban diversity is governed at different levels of scale. With a case study of Rotterdam, the chapter pays particular attention to governance at the city and neighbourhood level. The neighbourhood level has received relatively little attention in studies of multilevel governance of urban diversity. From the literature we know that most authorities in big diverse cities have a more pragmatic, positive and inclusive approach towards differences than their national counterparts. Based on the analysis of policy documents and interviews with key policy actors in Rotterdam and the leaders of grass roots
9
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 23 initiatives in Feijenoord, this chapter shows that the opposite is true for Rotterdam. We do find innovative, pragmatic and asset-based approaches towards diversity at the neighbourhood level by grass-roots initiatives, which therefore may give good clues for policies at higher spatial levels on how to deal with diversity and how to improve the lives of a diverse set of people. The chapter gives a detailed account of how policy makers and grass roots initiatives in Rotterdam have dealt with the political shift towards assimilationist, anti-immigrant sentiments in public and political discourses after the 2000s.
2. What attracts people to diverse, deprived urban areas? How do perceptions of local diversity play a role in their choice of and satisfaction with the neighbourhood?
The first research question dealing with resident perspectives on diversity is about neighbourhood choice and satisfaction. Few scholars or professionals have examined what attracts people to diverse and deprived urban areas and how perceptions of local diversity play a role in this respect. Those who have done so mostly focus on the middle classes. The picture has emerged that middle classes choose diversity, whereas lower classes are more often trapped in diverse neighbourhoods. With a qualitative study on neighbourhood choice and satisfaction among residents of different social classes in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands), this chapter demonstrates that diversity plays a role in the neighbourhood satisfaction, and to a lesser extent neighbourhood choice, not only of middle classes but of other resident groups as well, including households in low socioeconomic positions and minority ethnic and long-term residents in diverse neighbourhoods.
3. How do residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods draw symbolic boundaries?
The study continues by investigating the question how residents of highly diverse neighbourhoods identify social groups. Neighbourhood-based research on the rise of highly diverse cities has mostly focussed on the implications of living in diverse neighbourhoods for individual relations, and has paid little attention to processes of group formation. Drawing on the concept of symbolic boundary making, this chapter provides insights into how residents in highly diverse contexts draw, enact
10
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 24 and experience boundaries. Using the results of in-depth interviews with residents in Antwerp and Rotterdam, the chapter shows that diversity complexifies but does not counteract group formation. Residents draw multiple, interrelated symbolic boundaries along ethnic, class and religious lines and lines based on length of residence, which are sometimes used interchangeably. The chapter also shows that group boundaries are dynamic and constantly (re-)created. Finally, it shows that discursive boundaries do not necessarily lead to less social contact across these boundaries, thus illustrating that symbolic boundaries do not always result in segregated social patterns.
4. To what degree do the perceptions, social networks and socio-spatial practices of adults and youths in highly diverse contexts differ?
This chapter explores how the different daily uses of neighbourhood spaces by resident groups in diverse contexts are connected with whom they engage with and how they perceive diversity in their neighbourhoods. It does so with a study of adults (35-65 years old) and young people (12-21 years old) in the highly diverse area of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. Based on in-depth interviews, the chapter discusses how different uses of public and semi-public spaces are related to more diverse social networks and more multi-layered, fluid and normalised understandings of diversity among young people in Feijenoord, than among adults, for whom ethno-cultural diversity appeared to be a main social divider. While adults used concepts such as multiculturalism, young people saw diversity as an ordinary and practical part of their everyday lived experience. The chapter raises the question whether generations who grow up in diverse contexts have a less racialised and more tolerant relation with diversity than people who grew up in a less diverse place and time.
5. When, where and how do residents of highly diverse neighbourhoods develop a diverse social network in their neighbourhood?
This chapter further examines the implications of living in a highly diverse context for the composition and spatiality of locality-based weak ties. It seeks to advance the literature in three ways. First, it explores social networks by looking at multiple dimensions of difference (including age, gender, household type, religion, hobbies and interests such as being dog owners or shared use or ownership of a space)
11
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 25 rather than ethnicity and class alone. Second, it focusses on weak ties rather than strong ties. Third, in many research on social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods the neighbourhood is often defined as a standardised area, for instance a four- digit zip code. The chapter seeks to unravel this black box by focussing on the neighbourhood spaces where people meet other local people. On the basis of qualitative interviews with residents in the district of Feijenoord in Rotterdam, the chapter discusses how diverse locality-based relations mostly develop between neighbours and other acquaintances. Shared spaces with nearby neighbours and local institutions such as community centres and schools appear key facilitators of these networks by stimulating repeated and prolonged encounters.
6. To what degree do residents experience social distance in a newly built fine-grained mixed-tenure development and how are these experiences shaped by factors of design, management and local facilities?
Social mix is not only a key planning strategy in area-based interventions in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, but also in the construction of new neighbourhoods. The last empirical chapter focusses on resident perceptions and practices of diversity in a mixed-tenure apartment complex in the newly-built neighbourhood of IJburg in Amsterdam, which was planned and designed to be a ‘neighbourhood without borders’. This study is included because here neighbour relations were thought to be constructed afresh rather than reflecting the existing in- and out-group configurations and territorial stigma found in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where most empirical evidence on experiences of social mix originates. The findings show that - despite policy intentions – the reality of living in IJburg is far removed from idealised ‘neighbourhood without borders’. Tenure groups in the examined building perceive strong social distances between fellow residents. Negative encounters are related to problems in the design of the building and unequal power relations in terms of management of the apartment complex and the social boundaries that are drawn within the housing complex are further enhanced by segregated use of neighbourhood facilities and amenities.
12
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 26 1.5 Research design
1.5.1 Research areas
The research areas consisted of residential neighbourhoods in the Dutch cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and Antwerp in Belgium. Rotterdam and Antwerp were part of the 2013-2017 ‘Divercities: Governing Urban Diversity’ European research project, the overarching research program of which this dissertation is part. The three research cities are comparable in size. With approximately 635,000, 522,000 and 844,000 inhabitants Rotterdam, Antwerp and Amsterdam are large within the national context of the Netherlands and Belgium, but medium sized when compared to nearby global cities such as London and Paris. About half of the population of the three cities are people with a migration background. The researched neighbourhoods within these cities, Feijenoord in Rotterdam, the adjacent neighbourhoods Antwerpen Noord, Borgerhout and Deurne Noord in Antwerp and IJburg in Amsterdam are home to approximately 74,000, 150,000 and 15,000 residents respectively. The research neighbourhoods in Rotterdam and Antwerp were selected as part of the Divercities research project on the basis of two criteria: within their urban contexts they are relatively diverse in terms of the demographic features of their population and deprived in terms of the socioeconomic position of residents.
Chapters 2, 5 and 6 were situated in Feijenoord in Rotterdam. Chapters 3 and 4 took place in Feijenoord and in the research neighbourhoods in Antwerp. Although the diverse and deprived neighbourhoods are located in different cities and even countries, the aim of the chapters was not to compare Belgium and the Netherlands, or the cities of Antwerp and Rotterdam. Rather it aimed to explore in detail variation in neighbourhood choice and satisfaction and symbolic boundary making within the context of this type of neighbourhood. In other words, we focused on the specific neighbourhood context, and did not dwell extensively on the territorial level of the city and nation-state, although we see that these contexts do shape the contexts for these neighbourhoods. Positioned in the newly-built area IJburg in Amsterdam, chapter 7 is clearly an outlier within the framework of this dissertation: IJburg is a highly diverse but not a deprived area and research here took place among residents in one estate rather than in different parts of the
13
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 27 neighbourhood. The study was included because here relations between residents were through to be constructed afresh rather than a function of in and outgroup (re)productions over time. Most interviewees belonged to the first inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, research outcomes complement existing studies of tenure-mixed projects at higher spatial scales. Finally, by focussing on the role of place-specific factors of design, management and the local facility structure in a newly-built area the study provides important clues for the governance of diversity in other residential contexts, including those researched in Rotterdam and Antwerp.
1.5.2 Methods
A post-modernist ontology underlies this study, meaning that the study carries out that academic and policy concepts such as social cohesion, diversity and deprived neighbourhoods are social constructs made and remade by residents, policy makers, researchers and other professionals to understand and shape social reality. The research assumes that in order to generate a thorough understanding of and suitable policy for diverse, deprived areas multiple perspectives need to be addressed, of which importantly the perspective of the people in these areas. Therefore the methodology is qualitative in nature, focussing on the perceptions and concepts, motives, experiences and behaviours of people living in diverse, deprived contexts. The following combinations of research methods were used: in-depth interviews (chapters 2-7); participant observations (chapters 2-7); round table discussions of preliminary research findings with stakeholders including policy makers, civil society actors, social entrepreneurs, local best persons and other professionals (chapters 2-7); discourse analysis of policy documents (chapter 2); and narrative mapping (chapter 7). Participant observations, round table discussions with stakeholders and narrative mapping served to triangulate and contextualise the findings of in-depth interviews. In addition, the discourse analysis of policy documents and the round table discussions served to gain insight in policy perceptions and practices. In-depth interviews were structured by a topic list. Rather than using a standardised definition, interviewees were asked to use their own definition of the neighbourhood. Most interviewees defined their neighbourhood in terms of a geographical area composed of one or more streets
14
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 28 around their house. The borders were defined by activity spaces, and/or social, physical and administrative boundaries.
1.5.3 Data collection and analysis
Data collection took place by means of theoretical sampling. For chapter 2, policy actors and practitioners were approached in different national ministries, municipal departments and non-governmental organisations and associations that work with urban diversity in Rotterdam. Interviews were held with 10 governmental and 10 non-governmental policy actors on their experiences with present policy on diversity in Rotterdam. The fieldwork was conducted by the author between September 2013 and January 2014. Grass roots initiatives dealing with diversity in Feijenoord were selected on the basis of a number of selection criteria including purpose, size, stage of development and target audience. The author held interviews with 20 leaders of 10 grass roots initiatives in Feijenoord between March and June of 2014. Also for chapters 3 to 7, data collection had the aim to include the widest possible variety. Amongst others, attention was paid to residents’ age, gender, household type duration of stay in the neighbourhood, ethnicity, culture, religion, lifestyle, tenure type and location in the neighbourhood, and socioeconomic status (chapter 3-7). We have chosen not to sample on the basis of a fixed group because we did not want to make assumptions about the boundaries of social groups a priori. Our goal was to capture resident perspectives on diversity. Therefore, sampling took place ‘on the go’. In Rotterdam and Antwerp, residents were approached in the streets, within their homes, at community centres and by means of a snowballing method in which interviewees were asked to introduce us to specific local people who they mentioned in the interviews and had not been interviewed yet, such as middle class long-term residents with an owner-occupied dwelling. Between September 2014 and December 2014 interviews were held with 56 residents of which 3 couples in Rotterdam and 54 residents in Antwerp. The fieldwork in Rotterdam was carried out by the author with great help of a master student at the Human geography and Planning Department of Utrecht University Melike Peterson, who is a PhD-student at the University of Glasgow now. She held 15 of the 53 interviews. The round table discussions in Rotterdam were hosted by the author, co-promotor Gideon Bolt
15
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 29 and original promotor Ronald van Kempen of Utrecht University. The fieldwork in Antwerp was conducted by PhD student Ympkje Albeda, who also worked for the European project DIVERCITIES. The round tables in Antwerp were hosted by Ympkje Albeda, Arne Saeys, Stijn Oosterlynck, Gert Verschraegen and Danielle Dierckx of the University of Antwerp. The fieldwork in IJburg in Amsterdam was conducted by the author and took place from February to May 2013. The round table discussion in IJburg was hosted together with Fenne Pinkster of the University of Amsterdam. The interviews were held in respondents’ homes or in quiet local places suggested by interviewees, such as a quiet room in a community centre. The interviews lasted 45 minutes to one and a half hours. All interviews and round table talks were taped, transcribed and analysed using the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo (chapters 2-6) and Atlas.ti (chapter 7). During the analyses process inductive and deductive approaches were combined, meaning that the research questions set the framework for the analyses but were sometimes also redefined by these results. A detailed description of the methods can be found in the equivalent chapters.
1.6 Thesis outline
The thesis consists of six chapters. The chapters are based on papers that have been published or submitted to peer-reviewed journals. An exception is chapter 3 which has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed edited book. Chapter 2 compares how urban policies and neighbourhood initiatives in Rotterdam deal with diversity and subsequently draws lessons for the governance of urban diversity. Sketching the broader policy context for diversity in Rotterdam, the paper sets the scene for chapters 3 to 6 which all draw on research in the diverse area of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. Chapter 3 looks at how the perceptions of local diversity of people in diverse, deprived neighbourhoods in Feijenoord in Rotterdam and a comparable area in Antwerp (Antwerp Noord, Borgerhout Intra Muros and Deurne Noord) play a role in their choice of and satisfaction with the neighbourhood. Chapter 4 examines the degree to which the perceptions, social networks and socio-spatial practices of adults and youths in highly diverse contexts differ, in order to provide insight in the question whether people who grew up amidst complex diversity are more able to profit from it than those who
16
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 30 did not. Chapter 5 addresses how residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods create and recreate symbolic boundaries in order to guide and justify who they befriend. Chapter 6 provides insight in how and where locality-based diverse weak ties between residents of Feijenoord emerge. Amongst others it highlights the importance of local institutions. Chapter 7 is a case study of resident experiences with diversity in the newly built area of IJburg in Amsterdam that was deliberately planned to be ‘without social borders’. The conclusion of the thesis, returns to the research questions and discusses the theoretical and policy implications of the research.
References
Askins, K. (2015), Being together: everyday geographies and the quiet politics of belonging. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14 (2), pp. 470–478. Bailey, N., A. Kearns and M. Livingston (2012), Place attachment in deprived neighbourhoods: the impacts of population turnover and social mix. Housing Studies, 27 (2), pp. 208-231. Blommaert, J. (2013), Citizenship, language, and superdiversity: Towards complexity. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 12 (3), pp. 193–196. Bolt, G., R. van Kempen and M. van Ham (2008), Minority ethnic groups in the Dutch housing market: spatial segregation, relocation dynamics and housing policy. Urban Studies, 45 (7), pp. 1359–1384. Bolt, G. and R. van Kempen (2013), Introduction special issue: Mixing neighbourhoods: Success or failure?. Cities, 35, pp. 391-396. Boterman, W.R. (2013), Dealing with diversity: Middle-class family households and the issue of black and white schools in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 50 (6), pp. 1113–1147. Bretherton, J. and N. Pleace (2011), A difficult mix: Issues in achieving socioeconomic diversity in deprived UK neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 48 (16), pp. 3433–3447. Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crul, M. (2016), Super-diversity vs. assimilation: how complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration studies, 42 (1), pp. 54-68. Florida, R. (2003), Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2 (3), pp. 3–19. Florida, R. (2005), Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge. Galster, G. (2007), Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7 (1), pp. 19-43. Galster, G. and L. Hedman (2013), Measuring neighbourhood effects non-experimentally: How much do alternative methods matter?. Housing Studies, 28 (3), pp. 473–498. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360– 1480.
17
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 31 Geddes, A. and P. Scholten (2016), The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. London: Sage. Hall, S. (2015), Super-diverse street: A “trans-ethnography” across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (1), pp. 22–37. Hoekstra, M. (2017), Governing diversity, experiencing difference: The politics of belonging in ethnically diverse places. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Kleinhans, R. (2004), Social implications of housing diversification in urban renewal: A review of recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (2), pp. 367-390. Kleinhans, R.J. (2005), Sociale implicaties van herstructurering en herhuisvesting [Social implications of urban restructuring and relocation]. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Kleinhans, R. (2012), A Glass Half Empty or Half Full? On the Perceived Gap between Urban Geography Research and Dutch Urban Restructuring Policy. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12 (3), pp. 299-314. Lelevrier, C. (2013), Forced relocation in France: How residential trajectories affect individual experiences. Housing Studies, 28 (2), pp. 253–271. Meijeren, M. van and A.L. Ouwehand (2007), It’s the economy stupid! De hernieuwde aandacht voor de economie in de stedelijke vernieuwing. In: J. van Dijk and V. Schutjens (ed.), De economische kracht van de stad. Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 115-128. Miltenburg, E.M. (2017), A different place to different people: Conditional neighbourhood effects on residents’ socio-economic status. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Mollenhorst, G., B. Volker and H. Flap (2008), Social Contexts and Personal Relationships: The Effect of Meeting Opportunities on Similarity for Relationships of Different Strength.Social Networks, 30 (1), pp. 60–68. Musterd, S. and W. van Gent (2016), Changing welfare context and income segregation in Amsterdam and its metropolitan area. In: T. Tammaru, S. Marcińczak, M. van Ham and S. Musterd (ed.), Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities. East meets West. London: Routledge, pp. 55-79. Nast, J. and T. Blokland (2014), Social mix revisited: Neighbourhood institutions as setting for boundary work and social capital. Urban Studies, 48 (3), pp. 482–499. Peterson, M. (2016), Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: How important are encounters in semi-public spaces?. Social and Cultural Geography, pp. 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667 [published online before printing]. Pinkster, F.M. (2014), I just live here: Everyday practices of disaffiliation of middle class households in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51 (4), pp. 810–826. Putnam, R.D. (2007), E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), pp. 137–174. Raco, M. (2013), State-Led Privatisation and the Demise of the Democratic State. Farnhem: Ashgate. Raco, M., C. Colomb and J. Kesten (2014), Governing diversity, policy brief number 2. Brussels: European Commission. Schinkel, W. and M. van den Berg (2011), City of exception: the Dutch revanchist city and the urban Homo Sacer. Antipode, 43 (5), pp. 1911–1938. Scholten, P.W.A. and I. Van Breugel (2017), Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The
18
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 32 governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands. Policy and Society, DOI: 10.1332/030557317X14849132401769 [published online before printing]. Sharkey, P. and J. Faber (2014), Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the Dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, pp. 559–579. Smets P. and M. Den Uyl (2008), The complex role of ethnicity in urban mixing: a study of two deprived neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 45 (7), pp. 1439–1460. Tasan-kok, T., R. van Kempen, M. Raco and G. Bolt (2013), Towards hyper-diversified European cities. A critical literature review. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tersteeg, A.K., G. Bolt and R. van Kempen (2014), Governance arrangements and initiatives in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tersteeg, A.K., G. Bolt and R. van Kempen (2017), Divercities: dealing with urban diversity – the case of Rotterdam. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Uitermark, J. and J.W. Duyvendak (2005), Over de schouders van bestuurders en de ruggen van bewoners [On the shoulders of policy makers and behind the backs if residents]. Ruimte in Debat, 3 (5), pp. 2-12. Uitermark, J. and J.W. Duyvendak (2008), Civilizing the city: populism and revanchist urbanism in Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 45 (7), pp. 1485–1503. Uitermarkt, J., J.W. Duyvendak and R. Kleinhans (2007), Gentrification as a governmental strategy: social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A, 39 (1), pp. 125-141. Van Beckhoven, E. and R. van Kempen (2003), Social effects of urban restructuring: A case study in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands. Housing Studies, 18 (6), pp. 853–874. Van der Land, M. (2005), Urban consumption and feelings of attachment of Rotterdam’s new middle class. Sociological Research Online, 10 (2). Retrieved from:
19
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 33 Wessendorf, S. (2016), Settling in a super-diverse context: Recent migrants’ experiences of conviviality, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 449-463. Wilson, W.J. (1987), The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, W.J. (1996), When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf. Wilson, K. and A. Portes (1980), Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology, 86, pp. 295–319. Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (2009), Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (2014), Conviviality in Everyday Multiculturalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17 (4), pp. 406–430. Ye, J. (2016), The ambivalence of familiarity: Understanding breathable diversity through fleeting encounters in Singapore’s Jurong West. Area, 48 (1), 77–83.
20
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 34 GOVERNING URBAN DIVERSITY: INTERCULTURAL AND 2 ASSIMILATIONIST APPROACHES IN ROTTERDAM
Tersteeg, A.K. and G.S. Bolt This chapter is currently under review at an international journal
Abstract
Dealing with the increasing diversity of the population is a major challenge for urban policy. Whereas most authorities in big diverse cities have a more positive and inclusive approach than their national counterparts, the opposite is true for Rotterdam. In 2002, Rotterdam was the first Dutch city where an anti-immigrant, right wing populist party won the local elections. The political shift towards the right has influenced the policy discourse on diversity in Rotterdam to a great extent. Rotterdam has moved to an assimilationist framework in which there has been a decline in policy efforts to facilitate positive encounters between ethnic groups. However, grass-root initiatives may give good clues for policies at higher spatial levels on how to deal with diversity and how to improve the lives of a diverse set of people.
21
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 35 2.1 Introduction
Cities worldwide are becoming increasingly diverse, particularly as the result of globalization and migration. As cities diversify their socio-economic, cultural, religious and linguistic profiles, they becomesuper-diverse (Vertovec 2007) or hyper-diverse (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013). Hyper-diversity refers to ‘…an intense diversification of the population, not only in socio-economic, socio-demographic and ethnic terms, but also with respect to lifestyles, attitudes and activities’ (Tasan Kok et al. 2013, p. 6). This increasing diversification poses challenges for national integration policies as well as urban planning (Pemberton 2016). The assimilationist approach, viewing the otherness of ethnic communities as temporary, is increasingly problematic now that many large Western cities lack a clear majority group in which one is to assimilate (Crul 2016). At the same time, there has been backlash against the multiculturalist approach across Western Europe (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010). Multiculturalism is accused of stressing cultural differences (Amin 2002) and reinforcing power inequalities (Kymlicka 2010). Wood and Landry (2008), for instance, argue that forming alliances with (often self-appointed) ethnic community leaders is part and parcel of the (British) multicultural model. These alliances have reified the idea of fixed ethnic categories and are partly responsible for the building up of tensions between ethnic groups (cf. Cantle 2001). The (supposed) failure of multiculturalism, combined with the worries of politicians and voters about the increasing size and diversity of the immigrant population (e.g. Vertovec 2007) has led to a shift towards assimilationalist policies, at least at the national level. This is visible in the adoption of civic integration policies across Europe, which reveals a prioritization of the national cultural identity at the expense of the recognition of migrants’ cultural identity (Joppke 2007).
The shift to a more assimilationist approach at the national level is not necessarily reproduced at the local level. Due to trends of decentralization and increasing interactions between urban policymakers in city networks it can no longer be assumed that cities merely implement policies that are derived from policy paradigms defined at the national level (Schiller 2015). City authorities tend to adopt more inclusive forms of integration policies and to employ a more positive discourse towards diversity. Amsterdam, for instance, sees diversity as an asset
22
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 36 to the city, and (unlike the national government) does not expect its immigrants to adapt to the majority culture (Hoekstra 2015; Schiller 2013; Scholten 2013). Also other cities like Copenhagen (Andersen et al. 2014), Leeds (Schiller 2015), London (Raco et al. 2014a) and Zurich (Plüss and Schenkel 2014) have a more positive approach to diversity than their national governments. On the basis of a comparison of 14 cities Raco et al. (2014b) perceive a clear trend towards a more pragmatic approach to diversity in which positive aspects of difference for competitiveness and social cohesion are stressed. The local pragmatism can be related to the fact that it is the cities where the consequences of immigration are most visible. For city authorities, diversity is a given that has to be accommodated. They rather focus on coping with concrete issues than on delving into ideological debates (Penninx et al. 2004; Scholten 2013). The positive approach to diversity is informed by the notion of the ‘creative class’ which is supposed to be attracted to diverse and inclusive places (Florida 2003). Notwithstanding the critique on Florida’s theory, his ideas have inspired many urban policymakers (Hoekstra 2015).
However, cities are not by definition more open and inclusive than their national governments. Rotterdam is an example of a city where the discourse on integration has been harsher than the national debate. It is the first city in the Netherlands where a right wing populist party has won the elections. That happened in 2002 after several decades of Labour party rule. They adopted an assimilationist policy approach that was consistent with but slightly harsher than national policy discourses then. A clear example of that is the so-called Rotterdam-Law which enabled Rotterdam to exclude non-working people from certain neighbourhood (Van Eijk 2010; Scholten 2013). They managed to have their policy translated in a nation law, which is a clear example of what Guiraudon (2000) has described as ‘vertical venue shopping’. In this paper we aim to give insight in how Rotterdam tried to redefine their diversity policy after the assimilationist period under the reign of the populist party (2002-2006). The question is whether or not Rotterdam managed to develop a diversity policy that bypassed the problems that are associated with both the multicultural and the assimilationist approaches.
23
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 37 2.2 Diversity, interculturalism and mainstreaming
Critics of multiculturalism have put forward interculturalism as the preferable mode of incorporation (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013). The idea is that the focus of multicultural policies on the collective characteristics of people who are subject to discrimination accentuates the cultural differences on which their exclusion is based. This comes at the expense of the development of an overarching trust (Faist 2009). Interculturalism is presented as a concept that tackles the shortcomings of both assimilation and multiculturalism. Booth (2003, p. 432) argues that interculturalism is
…Concerned with the task of developing cohesive civil societies by turning notions of singular identities into those of multiple ones, and by developing a shared and common value system and public culture. In building from a deep sharing of differences of culture and experience it encourages the formation of interdependencies which structure personal identities that go beyond nations or simplified ethnicities.
Whereas assimilationism is critiqued for a lack of respect for diversity, interculturalism has sensitivity to ethnocultural diversity in common with multiculturalism. At the same time, its proponents argue that interculturalism is more committed to create a stronger sense of the whole (Meer and Modood 2012). According to Cantle (2012, p. 157) multiculturalism is about the co-existence of cultures, which reinforces differences, while interculturality is about‘a sense of openness, dialogue and interaction between cultures leading to long-term change in both relational and institutional arrangements’. It can be argued that cities are suitable places for creating a stronger sense of the whole. Wood and Landry (2008, p. 321) argue:
While people, migrants or not, find it increasingly difficult to find common cause with or a loyalty for a national state that does not recognize them and that pursues an aggressive and dubious foreign policy; but they do identify with the city where they live, work and interact. (cf. Dukes and Musterd 2012).
24
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 38 One element of an intercultural approach, therefore, is to stimulate encounters with others in urban space. Fincher and Iveson (2008, p. 145) plea that city life should enable ‘our capacity to explore different sides of ourselves and to craft new identifications through encounters with others as strangers’. Therefore, zones of encounters should be created, as interaction will not happen automatically (Wood and Landry 2008).
The claim that multiculturalism leads to parallel communities, as opposed to dialogue between cultures, is also supported by the argument that it treats members of minority ethnic groups as ‘ever-representative of bounded collective’ (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010, p. 19). In the context of an increasingly diverse population it is not feasible anymore to protect the heritage of different cultures and to communicate with community representatives to do so (Van Breugel et al. 2014; Pemberton 2016). There is no one who can claim to be the spokesman of a community, when that community is fragmented and when identities become increasingly hybrid. Advocates of interculturalism argue that it is necessary to move beyond depictions of bounded communities differentiated along ethnic and cultural lines as it leads to essentialising of ethnic differences, while overlooking other differentiations on the basis of class, lifestyles, attitudes or activity patterns (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013; Pemberton 2016). Therefore, a shift is needed from the recognition of collective identities to that of individual competences. Consequently, mainstreaming is advocated as the best strategy for addressing a hyperdiverse society (Van Breugel et al. 2014). Collett and Petrovic (2014, p. 3) describe mainstreaming as ‘the effort to reach people with a migration background through social programming and policies that also target the general population, rather than through specific immigrant integration policies alone’.
Mainstreaming implicates that diversity policy is not the responsibility of a single department in a municipality, but that diversity-related efforts are integrated into the core services of all administrations in the municipality (Andersen et al. 2014). Mainstreaming should not be seen as a colour-blind universal policy (which would fit in an assimilationist approach), but as diversity-sensitive policy that does not treat people solely as a member of an ethnic group. Toronto, a city which has adopted ‘diversity our strength’ as its motto, has a very broad understanding of diversity, including categories like seniors, youth, women, LGBTQ people,
25
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 39 the urban poor, ethnic groups, disabled people, newcomers and immigrants, aboriginal peoples and the homeless. A civil servant from the City of Toronto’s Community Development indicates:
Everyone is diverse and how do we as an organization make sure that everyone is part of what we do not just this or that group. We often use the terminology ‘equity seeking groups’ to address these groups and it is the LGBT community, as it is people with disabilities as it is newcomers, etc. It is about equity and access and ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to participate (Ahmadi and Tasan-Kok 2014, p. 14).
In the UK mainstreaming is formalized in the Equality Act 2010 in which a duty was placed on all public bodies to consider how their practices and policies impact on the equality of different groups. The legal framework requires local authorities and the Mayor to address the specific needs of diverse groups. The so-called ‘protected characteristics’ included in the Act are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity (Raco et al. 2014a, p. 13).
2.3 Research methods
The next sections are based on qualitative interviews with ten governmental and ten non-governmental policy actors on their experiences with present policy on diversity in Rotterdam and the analysis of policy documents that interviewees identified as most influential for the governance of diversity in the city. The fieldwork took place between September 2013 and January 2014, with an update of the document analysis in April 2016. The governmental actors interviewed work at the national, city and neighbourhood level, e.g. at the ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, diverse municipal departments and the municipal districts. The non-governmental interviewees work in research and knowledge institutions that collaborate with the municipality concerning the governance of diversity. A list of the interviewed policy actors and analysed policy documents can be found in Tersteeg et al. (2017).
26
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 40 Moreover, we have made an analysis of ten local initiatives that have a clear, local impact in the district of Feijenoord in Rotterdam and aim at increasing social cohesion, social mobility and/or the economic performance of local residents. Fieldwork for this part of the research was conducted between February and July 2014. We conducted qualitative interviews with twenty leaders and executives from the ten local initiatives and organized a focus group interview with the leaders of local initiatives in and outside of Feijenoord. A list of interviewees and participants of the round table talk is also provided in Tersteeg et al. (2017).
2.4 Diversity as problem or strength?
2.4.1 The Rotterdam approach
Whereas many cities have a more positive approach to diversity than their national governments (Raco et al., 2014b), the opposite applies to Rotterdam. Until 2002 Rotterdam had a cross-cutting diversity policy called The Multi-coloured City. The policy was based on a multiculturalist discourse. Diversity was defined along socio-cultural lines and it was seen as a quality and a matter that concerns all citizens (groups) and employers in the city. In 2001, Rotterdam openly celebrated cultural diversity as a European Capital of Culture. This approach came to an abrupt end in 2002 when, after decades of rule by the Labour Party, the populist party Liveable Rotterdam (Leefbaar Rotterdam) came to power. In line with national discourses on diversity at that time, the party aimed to achieve socio- cultural assimilation of newcomers, particularly Muslims. Ethnic and religious differences were framed as a safety threat for the city. Liveable Rotterdam gave voice to existing discontent among a significant part of the population. The Labour Party governed the city again between 2006 and 20141, but the kind of diversity policies which were in place prior to 2002 where not re-introduced. Most governmental policy actors we talked to explained that diversity is often understood as a problem that the city needs to cope with. Even though the city – particularly in its citizenship and integration policy - tries to frame diversity as a quality, for instance by talking about ‘talent development’ and the city’s ‘174 nationalities’, policies often pay more attention to potential negative effects of diversity, such as social tensions, economic competition, and socio-economic
27
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 41 exclusion, rather than on extending positive developments, interviewees argue. According to the vice-mayor on Labour Market, Higher Education, Innovation and Participation:
In every day practice people worry [indeed] about the negative sides [of diversity]. …People are concerned with the here and now. When you are unemployed and thousands of people move here, it makes no sense [for me to] tell a good story about ‘it is all so important for Europe’ etcetera. The unemployed will just see the negative consequences.
Several non-governmental interviewees discuss how - when diversity is seen as a quality in policy - governmental as well as non-governmental policy makers mainly portray it as an economic benefit. Whereas an intercultural approach advocates the importance of dialogue and interaction, and concomitantly, the creation of meeting opportunities, this is hardly seen as a task of the municipality. The director of the National Programme Rotterdam-South explains that previously policy makers focused more on creating social cohesion while at present economic performance is the main goal, also in his programme. This is in line with findings from the documentary analysis. Social cohesion is rarely referred to and if it is, it is used as a token for generating economic benefits. A Policy Advisor of a knowledge centre argues that in the super-diverse city of Rotterdam it is important that the municipality pays attention to the social qualities of diversity besides the economic ones, for instance by encouraging more positive and tolerant understandings of differences. Moreover, when more people can work with diversity among the population, this will benefit the economy as well, he argues. Also, a researcher and founder of an urban revitalisation programme in Rotterdam-South and the Director of the Knowledge Centre for Emancipation (KCE) emphasise the importance of training people to be able to work and live together ‘interculturally’, thus sensitive to complex cultural diversities. These views are in contrast with those of several governmental actors, including the vice-mayors, who no longer find this a duty of the municipality.
2.4.2 The approach of grass-root initiatives
An intercultural approach is much more prevalent amongst grass-root initiatives.
28
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 42 Tersteeg et al. (2014) evaluated ten of these initiatives in Feijenoord, one of the most deprived and diverse areas in Rotterdam and found that almost all of them see diversity both as an economic and social quality and opportunity. The initiatives were aimed at increasing social cohesion, social mobility or economic performance (or a combination of these goals) and nine of the ten use diversity as a means or a strategy to achieve their goals. Initiatives aimed at economic performance use diversity as selling point. For instance, the Neighbourhood Cooperation (a network organization of entrepreneurs in Feijenoord stresses that diversity can provide good business opportunities:
Who looks at the [disadvantaged] neighbourhoods in large cities, with numerical and financial glasses, will initially see poverty, disadvantages and other threats. Yet, the Neighbourhood Cooperation has eyes for the large diversity of cultures, talents, knowledge and skills of residents. It sees the city as a large market for her [the Neighbourhood Cooperation’s] ‘product’. By means of work and other services and products, the Neighbourhood Cooperation sees the opportunity to enlarge the self-organising ability of people and to counteract the [current] waste of talent (Wijkcooperatie, n.d., p. 4).
Another example is the Neighbourhood Kitchen, where home cooks prepare diverse cuisines together, mostly for caterings. For the Neighbourhood Kitchen, cultural diversity is a selling point. The main product that the business sells is its diverse ethnic food. As an interviewed director of the Kitchen explains:
If we would only have a Moroccan or a Pakistani chef, we would not be home to all those [diverse] cuisines …It is the diversity that enables us to deliver the 12 cuisines …and all the variations to those [cuisines], because of the collaborations and differences between the participants.
The Neighbourhood Kitchen both builds on and contributes to the cultural richness of the neighbourhood. By doing so, it promotes diversity as an economic value and an intrinsic quality of the neighbourhood.
Positive encounters between residents are not only used as a means to stimulate
29
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 43 social mobility or the economic performance of entrepreneurs, but also as a way of creating social cohesion. An example is Spectacle at the Cape, a culture, music and art festival in the neighbourhood of Katendrecht (part of the Feijenoord area). The strategy is to facilitate positive encounters, both while organising and during the festival. It focusses particularly on encounters between old and new Katendrechters. A director argues:
We aim to attract diverse people, to enable crossovers. So that people can experience how great the performances are or how beautiful the new design houses [from New Katendrechters] are from the inside, because they are allowed inside. We hope that people will talk with each other.
Also, by visualising and celebrating cultural diversity, the festival seeks to stimulate the emergence of a common pride among residents in the area.
2.5 Mainstreaming
2.5.1 Mainstreaming is the motto
The trend towards mainstreaming discourse is reflected in the declining influence of migrant organizations. There has been a reduction in municipal subsidies and migrant organizations are less and less involved in policymaking. This is in line with the national trend. Since 2010, the national government is cutting back heavily on subsidies for organisations that represent minority ethnic groups and the most important one, FORUM Institute for Multicultural Issues, that directed the Common Integrated Approach Programme (aimed to tune the integration approaches of the central government and municipalities) together with the Ministry of Social Affairs has even been abolished. In 2012, the Rotterdam municipality created four knowledge centres: one with a focus on ‘diversity’, the others on ‘emancipation of women’, ‘emancipation of homosexuals’, and ‘anti- discrimination’. These centres act as umbrella organisations for the multitude of organisations on these topics in the city. The knowledge centres collaborate with various non-governmental and governmental actors to collect and share knowledge on these four topics. However, the Policy Advisors at the Knowledge
30
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 44 Centres argue that they were hardly included in the policy development process. For example, the Policy Advisor at the anti-discrimination centre says:
It feels very much imposed. This is our policy and this is how we will apply it. If you do not agree, no subsidy. I think it is being imposed. But afterwards [if you accept the requirements] you are able to participate. See, it should have been different at the formation of the policy, involve the people.
At the start of their 4-year government term in 2010, the ruling coalition developed a Coalition Work Programme (2010) and an associated Implementation Strategy (2013) that respectively define ‘what’ should be done and ‘how’. The Coalition Work Programme and Implementation Strategy mention a wide variety of specific target groups for particular policy programmes and initiatives (e.g. people on benefits; elderly; students; families; drug addicts; women). At the same time, the coalition says it wants to invest in all Rotterdammers to support not only the economic success of the middle and upper class, but also the success of lower socio-economic groups. The policy is implemented through an area-based policy approach in which ‘the wishes and needs in areas’ are regarded essential. The area-based approach entails an intensive and productive collaboration with the Districts’ (Coalition Work Programme 2010, p. 5). The policies strive to redistribute financial resources, but do not solely focus on lower-income groups. It is recognised that not all Rotterdammers have the abilities to participate equally in society. Therefore, the municipality will take care of the utmost disadvantaged groups as national legislation requires them to do. Yet, the coalition wants to invest in higher-income groups and successful businesses as well.
The trend towards mainstreaming is also evident in housing policy. Although the policies do discuss specific housing matters for specific target groups (e.g. families, elderly, students) the examined policy is explicitly framed as mainstream policy:
It is our ambition to improve the quality of living of all Rotterdammers. It is important that everyone, contemporary and future residents, resides with pleasure. …We look beyond the middle and higher income groups that we seek to retain and attract. We pay attention to residential satisfaction of
31
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 45 all Rotterdammers, thus also those with a low income. Rotterdam should become a residential city for everyone (Implementation Programme Housing Vision 2010-2014 2011, p. 16).
2.5.2 Mainstreaming in practice
The idea of mainstreaming is that there is no separate integration policy anymore, but that integration and diversity issues are addressed in all departments. Our interviewees agree that diversity should be a cross-cutting matter, but in practice diversity is often seen as a matter that concerns the Social Affairs Department. As a consequence, interviewees argue that diversity is also not discussed much in municipal departments, districts, and social institutions. For instance, a Political Advisor argues:
Years ago, I used to work with it [diversity] a lot as a civil servant. But, in recent years this is not the case anymore. I believe that it has faded away a bit. Before, there used to be an entire post for Integration and Participation [policy]. Today, this [formal attention for diversity] has certainly become less.
In practice, many interviewees observe a tension between the stated universal nature of a policy and its focus on particular groups in its actual implementation. A Programme Manager argues that “to the outside world, the municipality communicates to strive for mainstream policy”. Both governmental and non- governmental interviewees talk about the tension between a universal and a more focused policy approach. They argue that some municipal departments practice mainstream policy, while others target specific groups and that there often seem to be exceptions to the rule. A Programme Manager argues:
As municipality we seek to communicate unambiguously but in our practice you can see different trajectories. For instance, …the citizenship policy team] says: we do not practice policy for specific groups very explicitly … when it is necessary, for instance, to talk with the Pakistanis, we go and talk with Pakistanis. …So that is the Social Affairs Department, then you have the Department of Work and Income, they say: our policies do not target
32
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 46 specific groups. To the outside world, the municipality communicates: our policies do not target specific groups. But, [in practice] it depends on the relevant alderman, managers, and the civil servant whether and why they deviate from this. For example, we have the Somalis. That is a group with many problems. The Department of Work and Income makes an exception for this. Not structurally though. Previously, we had structural subsidies for specific groups. That we have no longer.
Mainstream policy is not always evident in policy implementation either. According to two Policy Advisors, the implementation of mainstream policy also depends on the employees of a district. For instance, they argue that the district of Delfshaven is much stricter with the requirement that NGOs can only get subsidies when activities target multiple social groups than the district of Feijenoord. Non- governmental policy actors tell how organisations can get around the demand for mainstream policy (implementation) by “adding a sentence that says that an activity should be accessible to all [when applying for municipal subsidies]. Of course everyone is welcome. Yet, at the same time when a certain group of people comes together it excludes other people” (Director of a Knowledge Centre).
Some interviewees are concerned that a mainstream policy approach is not sensitive enough to the needs of diverse social groups, particularly vulnerable groups in society. A Policy Advisor expresses his concerns about mainstream policy and argues that more attention should be paid to disadvantaged groups. Not only does mainstream policy run the risk of excluding certain social groups, he argues, but when it is not sensitive to diversity it will be ineffective as well:
If you want to do something about the health of Rotterdam children in Rotterdam West, then it is certainly important to know that the parents who live there have a certain background, that they communicate in a different way with their children than in Schiebroek or Kralingen [more affluent areas in Rotterdam], that the manners and communication are different. I am not only talking about language. Sometimes, that can be a problem as well, but also the way you interact with each other is undoubtedly different, family relations are different. So if you want to reach children there, in Rotterdam West, then you need to implement
33
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 47 different instruments. If you do not take local diversity into account, you will simply become less effective.
Like several municipal interviewees, non-governmental interviewees are worried about the prioritising of mainstream policy and argue that policy should pay more attention to disadvantaged groups. According to a policy advisor at knowledge centre, mainstream policy wrongly ignores the diversity of the population. A policy advisor at one of the knowledge centres questions: “there is mainstream policy, but does it manage to reach everyone?”.
The lack of attention for diversity issues was not only due to a changing policy vision in the period 2006-2014, but was also a question of a financial push towards mainstreaming. Several policy officers interviewed by Maan et al. (2014) claimed that the shift towards generic policies really took place when the new Coalition in 2010 cut all subsidies for mono-cultural organizations and projects. A policy officer comments:
When looking back I can conclude there was no effort to mainstream at that time. The efforts were very much focused on letting go of immigrant- integration policies but the responsibility for this field was not picked up on by other departments (Maan et al. 2014, p. 59).
Our interviewees confirm that the municipal budget for the governance of diversity is fairly low. When asked, most argue that only the budgets of citizenship and integration policy can be regarded budgets for governing diversity, counting €4.8 million and €150,000 on a total municipal budget of €4.2 billion for 2013. Indirectly, many more services are working with diversity such as the departments of housing, education, safety, and work and income. However, non-governmental policy actors argue that the two policies in which diversity is most prominently addressed – on citizenship and integration – have experienced relatively high budget cuts compared to other policy themes. A Policy Advisor at the Knowledge Centre for Anti-Discrimination (KCAD) explains that the cuts have caused a loss of activities on matters of diversity. In addition, they have caused many NGOs to disappear, causing knowledge loss.
34
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 48 In other words, mainstreaming in Rotterdam did not entail a different kind of integration policy, but amounted to an almost disappearance of integration from the policy agenda.
2.6 Going beyond integration?
2.6.1 Integration or assimilation?
The mainstreaming approach is reflected in the place of integration on the political agenda. While the Coalition of 2002-2006 (which included the populist party Livable Rotterdam) had a vice-mayor with a separate portfolio on ‘Social integration’, integration under the subsequent coalitions (without Livable Rotterdam) was part of a much broader portfolio (Public Health, Well-Being and Social Care in 2006-2010; Labour Market, Higher Education, Innovation and Participation in 2010-2014) (Maan et al. 2014). The integration strategy in the latter period was part of a broader citizenship policy and is described in the policy programme Doing More: Rotterdammers in Action. The programme claims to be mainstream, aimed at all Rotterdammers. Newcomers to a city experience difficulties on a number of matters including language barriers and knowledge of local institutional arrangements. Nevertheless, according to Doing More (p. 4) newcomers need not expect to be treated differently from existing residents as this would favour them above existing citizens:
We want equal opportunities for all Rotterdammers and we will counteract unbalanced approaches. We think this is also part of the constitutional law. The constitutional law forms a framework for the integration of new Rotterdammers. It creates order in society, entails rules, and offers protection and opportunities to all citizens.
This phrase reflects the assimilationist idea of citizenship that seem to underlie the programme. It is not clearly defined what ‘unbalanced approaches’ are, but it seems to refer to approaches that favour newcomers above existing residents. Instead, the constitutional law is presented as a norm that newcomers should adapt to. Implicitly the argument is made that the pluralist policy of the policy of
35
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 49 the past was at odds with the constitutional law2. The assimilationist stance of the programme is also reflected in the description of Rotterdam as two separate cities:
…the fast and the slow city… [defined respectively as] the successful entrepreneurs, the cultural sector, the high educated, ICT, design, the advanced harbour industry… [and] the city of the beneficiaries, the low educated, the isolated population groups, of poverty and stagnation (Doing More: Rotterdammers in Action, p. 2).
Although, the programme argues that more attention should be paid to commonalities between people to promote more positive experiences of diversity, the emphasis is on negative experiences of diversity as it concludes that ‘overall we can speak of a heavy pressure on social structures in Rotterdam’ (p. 2). In line with the Coalition Work Programme, the programme aims to stimulate talent and entrepreneurship, the social mobility of citizens, so as to strengthen the economy of Rotterdam. For instance, the programme advises to facilitate work tours in which unemployed people of the slow city can meet employers of the fast city in the harbour. Clearly, the main goal is not to foster more positive understandings of diversity, but to stimulate that the ‘slow city’ will adapt to the ‘fast city’.
Since the presentation of the 2012 research report State of the Integration in Amsterdam and Rotterdam (Entzinger and Scheffer 2012), the municipality of Rotterdam has built upon it in its policy, municipal policy actors argue. The report concludes that the city cannot ask foreign groups to assimilate into Dutch society as half of the population of both cities have a foreign background. Therefore, most interviewed municipal policy actors argue that the Department of Social Affairs is moving from a cultural integration discourse towards a focus on economic participation of all Rotterdammers. Many interviewees refer to this as ‘going beyond integration’. However, the interviewees acknowledge that not all municipal departments have made this shift. According to the vice-mayor on Labour Market, Higher Education, Innovation and Participation, the economic participation discourse is not assimilationist in nature. Rotterdammers are asked to integrate into the economy, but they are free to choose how they do so (e.g. paid or voluntarily). Nevertheless, an Area Manager discusses how assimilationism still often underlies urban policy today as economic and cultural integration are
36
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 50 very much intertwined. She illustrates this with an example of work tours that are organised in Rotterdam-South under the Doing More policy for unemployed young people who often belong to a minority ethnic group to meet potential employers in the harbour:
The harbour employers say: of course, we would like to employ people from this area, there is plenty of work. But when it comes down to it, the education levels and social skills of the people that seemed eligible for the jobs appear insufficient. Thus, economic and social dimensions correlate. Somehow, it is the case that people in this area have to adjust to the employers will. And it stands or falls on trivial things: giving a weak hand. In Turkish and Moroccan culture this is a sign of respect. Yet, a harbour employer wants a strong hand, strong, steady. When the applicant does not look you in the eye during an interview it is a sign of respect, but they employers] find him too hesitant. This type of things. So, then it goes wrong.
Also, a Programme Manager at a housing association gives an example of this as he explains that in line with municipal and national discourses on integration, leaflets are only provided in Dutch despite of the fact that a significant part of their clients do not understand the Dutch language well. Indeed, while several governmental actors speak of a shift away from a cultural assimilation discourse in urban policy, the majority of non-governmental actors argue that there is still an assimilationist notion in policy (practice):
in my view present policy is focused on ‘we must make sure that foreign people integrate, while I think integration should come from various sides. But essentially, we should think of how citizens can be involved in the city – independently of their ethnic background (Policy Advisor of a knowledge centre).
2.6.2 Assimilation and housing policy
The assimilationist approach is also noticeable in the housing policy of Rotterdam. This is most evident in the 2005 Act on Exceptional Measures Concerning
37
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 51 Inner-City Problems that is developed to regulate the proportion of low-income households in deprived urban areas. The law allows municipal governments to exclude people who depend on social security (apart from social security for the elderly) and cannot financially support themselves, and who have not lived in the municipal region in the preceding 6 years, from the rental housing market in so- called problem areas (Van Eijk 2010). The law is popularly called the Rotterdam Act as it was first proposed by the municipality of Rotterdam, and has to date, not been implemented in any other city. The argumentation of Rotterdam was that certain deprived areas in Rotterdam could not accommodate any more vulnerable residents. It is presently in effect in five designated areas in Rotterdam. Six major housing associations in Rotterdam have committed themselves to the Act. Several scholars and politicians in the Netherlands are critical of the Act and argue that it violates the freedom of establishment (of vulnerable groups) (see Van Eijk 2013). In addition, they believe that the Act unofficially aims at limiting the housing opportunities of disadvantaged minority ethnic groups (Ouwehand and Doff 2013). That is due to the fact that the trigger for the Rotterdam-law was a report of Rotterdam Bureau of Statistics, which presented a prognosis that minority ethnics would make up over 50% of the population and that this figure would be even much higher in some districts. In response to this report vice-mayor Pastors of Liveable Rotterdam argued for an ‘immigrant-stop’ or a ‘fence around Rotterdam’ to prevent (deprived) immigrants to move into the city (Maan et al. 2014b). Outside his party there was no political support for this idea. Moreover, the idea of an immigrant-stop was violating the constitution. Therefore, the proposal of the 2002-2006 Coalition that led to the Rotterdam Act focused on addressing concentration of disadvantaged people and not the concentration of immigrants. In this way, the sting in the political discussion between Liveable Rotterdam and the other two parties was removed by the following semantic solution:
…Ethnicity or descent is not the main issue. It is the relative wealth and socio-economic position of newcomers and the opportunities in the city for social mobility. In short, the colour is not the problem, but the problem does have a colour (Rotterdam presses on 2003, p. 12).
In the period that Liveable Rotterdam was not in the ruling coalition (2006-2014), the Rotterdam Act continued to be implemented, despite the facts that there is
38
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 52 no indication that it has any positive effect on the livability and safety of the designated areas (Hochstenbach et al. 2015)
2.6.3 Towards more overt assimilation
When governmental policy actors were asked why policy makers do not discuss diversity, interviewees argue that this derives from the 4-year term in which Liveable Rotterdam had significant power in the city council (2002-2006). This caused a radical policy discourse shift from pluralism to assimilation. Interviewees mention that negative experiences of ethnic diversity were emphasised. A Programme Manager describes it as follows:
A motion was submitted – no diversity policy – and hereafter the taboo emerged. It is very strange. Abroad, we talk about diversity with no trouble - nice stories – then everyone is impressed and wants to come and have a look at Rotterdam. But, internally we do not talk about it and you do not see it back on paper either. In the entire Coalition Work Programme, I think diversity and integration are mentioned once as words, but then no more. It is the fear in politics. In this case I would say it is the PvdA [Labour Party] who is scared to put diversity into the foreground. It is just not talked about.
The taboo on discussions on under Labour Party rule (2006-2014) came to an abrupt end when Liveable Rotterdam took charge again in 2014. Despite of the influential 2012 research report The State of Integration and critiques from professionals, scholars and politicians in the Netherlands (see Van Eijk 2013; Ouwehand and Doff 2013), the coalition placed socio-cultural integration high on their agenda. Socio-cultural integration is mentioned in the coalition programmes for citizenship and integration and safety. The programs call for the socio-cultural adaptation of those citizens with an international migration background (and Dutch nationality) to a suggested homogenous Dutch culture, which is ascribed to those citizens without such a background. The most recent citizenship policy, for instance, starts as follows:
In Rotterdam, it is the obligation and responsibility of the migrant to
39
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 53 integrate. By integrating …we for instance mean learning the Dutch language and respecting and acting upon existing norms (Full Participation in Rotterdam 2016-2018, p. 3).
In the same breath, the current vice mayor for Urban Development and Integration compares the socio-cultural integration of migrants with merging on a highway:
Integration can be compared with merging on a highway. The highway is the Netherlands. The migrant merges using the acceleration lane. It is firstly the merger’s responsibility to merge safely. When necessary and possible, we expect drivers on the main road to give way. It is a matter of decent zipping and reciprocity (Integration 010. 2015, pp. 5-6).
2.7 Conclusion
Discourses underlying urban policy on diversity in Rotterdam resound, or have sometimes even been leading those at the national level, yet show vast differences with those of local initiatives at the neighbourhood level. We find that the present policy in Rotterdam pays little attention to diversity. The city does not have an articulated diversity policy and the municipal budget for the governance of diversity is relatively low. Moreover, diversity in policy is more often understood as a problem rather than as an asset or opportunity. Although policy actors value the fact that mainstream policy does not differentiate between groups – and thus also does not stigmatise – they argue that it runs the risk of overlooking the specific needs of vulnerable social groups. Indeed, mainstreaming as implemented in Rotterdam does not seem to be a diversity-sensitive approach at all, which is in stark contrast to cities like Toronto and London, where policymakers are much more aware of specific needs of diverse groups and where there is a much stronger consensus that the personnel of the municipality and other organisations should be representative for the population of the city (Ahmadi and Tasan-Kok 2014; Raco et al. 2014a).
Mainstreaming in Rotterdam seems to be a euphemism for budget cuts on diversity policies. While mainstreaming fits, in theory, very well with an interculturalist
40
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 54 agenda, policies in Rotterdam hold an underlying assimilationalist discourse: the policies are aimed at all Rotterdammers, but an extra effort is asked from residents with a foreign background and those belonging to, what the municipality calls in its integration policy ‘the slow city’, to catch up with the mainstream which policy portrays as the existing residents of the ‘fast city’. Several policy actors have expressed their disappointment about the absence of a discussion on how to deal with complex social diversity and speak of a ‘taboo,’ which should be understood in light of discourse shifts on the matter of diversity in Rotterdam, and in national policies from pluralism and integrationism at the end of the 1990s to economic and cultural assimilation today. Yet, in a highly and complexly diverse city such as Rotterdam, it is essential to pay more attention to positive experiences of difference and connection between different groups in policy. In this respect, Rotterdam can learn lessons from the grass-root initiatives within its own borders. Firstly, many local initiatives examined deliberately build upon diversity to achieve their goals: the initiatives aim at fostering social cohesion by enabling positive exchanges between diverse people; they aim at increasing social mobility by generating a flywheel effect, that is, participants educate one another; and to stimulate entrepreneurship, the initiatives use diversity as a selling point or as a strategy to raise social capital. Secondly, while national and urban policies promotes a mainstream approach, in which policies are meant to target all citizens in the municipality rather than specific groups, local initiatives acknowledge and cater to the diverse characteristics of participants. Thirdly, in contrast with urban policy, local initiatives use a broad definition of diversity and mostly see diversity as a social and economic quality or opportunity. Without ignoring the difficulties that particular ethnic and cultural diversity can bring, a welcoming, interculturalist discourse underlies the approaches of the local initiatives examined.
Notes
1 In the period 2006-2010 the Labour Party (PvdA) was the biggest party in a coalition with the Christian Democrats (CDA), the Liberal Democrats (D66), the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the Green Party (Groen Links). In the period 2010-2014 the PvdA ruled together with D66 and CDA. From 2014 Liveable Rotterdam is the biggest party in a coalition with CDA and D66. 2 As Kymlicka (2010) argues this is a highly questionable argument.
41
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 55 References Ahmadi, D. and T. Tasan-Kok (2014), Assessment of urban policies in Toronto, Canada. Delft: Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment. Andersen, H.T., V. Blach, R. Skovgaard Nielsen and A. Winther Beckman (2014), Assessment of urban policies on diversity in Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University. Booth, T. (2003), Book review of: Interculturalism, education and inclusion. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51 (4), pp. 432-433. Cantle, T. (2012), Interculturalism. The new era of cohesion and diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Collett, E. and M. Petrovic (2014), The future of immigrant integration in Europe: mainstreaming approaches for inclusion. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe. Crul, M. (2016), Super-diversity vs. assimilation: how complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration studies, 42 (1), pp. 54-68. Dukes, T. and S. Musterd (2012), Towards social cohesion: Bridging national integration rhetoric and local practice. The case of the Netherlands. Urban studies, 49 (9), pp. 1981-1997. Entzinger, H. and P. Scheffer (2012),State of integration in Amsterdam and Rotterdam [Staat van integratie in Amsterdam en Rotterdam]. Amsterdam/Rotterdam: Municipalities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Faist, T. (2009), Diversity – a new mode of incorporation?. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32 (1), pp. 171-190. Fincher, R. and K. Iveson (2008), Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and encounter. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Florida, R. (2003), Cities and the creative class. City and community, 2 (1), pp. 3-19. Guiraudon, V. (2000), European integration and migration policy: vertical policy‐making as venue shopping. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (2), pp. 251-271. Hochstenbach, C., J. Uitermark and W. van Gent (2015), Evaluatie effecten wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek (‘Rotterdamwet’) in Rotterdam [Evaluation effects act on exceptional measures concerning inner-city problems (‘Rotterdam act’) in Rotterdam]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hoekstra, M. (2015), Diverse cities and good citizenship: How local governments in the Netherlands recast national integration discourse. Ethnic and racial studies, 38 (10), pp. 1798-1814. Joppke, C. (2007), Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in western Europe. West European Politics, 30 (1), pp. 1-22. Kymlicka, W. (2010), The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. International Social Science Journal, 61 (199), pp. 97-112. Maan, X., I. van Breugel and P. Scholten (2014), The politics of mainstreaming immigrant integration policies - case study of the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Meer, N. and T. Modood (2012), How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism?. Journal of intercultural studies, 33 (2), pp. 175-196.
42
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 56 Ouwehand, A.I. and W. Doff (2013), Who is afraid of a changing population? Reflections on housing policy in Rotterdam. Geography Research Forum, 33, pp. 111-146. Pemberton, S. (2016), Urban planning and the challenge of super-diversity, Policy and Politics, DOI: 10.1332/030557316x14748933439483 Penninx, R., K. Kraal, M. Martiniello and S. Vertovec (2004), Citizenship in european cities. Immigrants, local politics and integration policies. London: Ashgate Publishing. Plüss, l. and W. Schenkel (2014), Urban policies on diversity in Zurich, Switzerland. Zurich: Synergo. Scholten, P.W. (2013), Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: the case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands, Policy Sciences, 46 (3), pp. 217-236. Raco, M., J. Kesten and C. Colomb (2014a), Assessment of urban policies in London, UK. London: Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Raco, M., C. Colomb and J. Kesten (2014b), Governing diversity, policy brief number 2. Brussels: European Commission. Rotterdam (2003), Rotterdam presses on: on the way to a city in balance [Rotterdam zet door: op weg naar een stad in balans]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2010), Coalition work programme Rotterdam 2010-2014. Working on talent and entrepreneurship [college werkprogramma Rotterdam 2010-2014. Werken aan talent en ondernemen]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2011), Doing more: Rotterdammers in action. Integration strategy [Mee(r) doen: Rotterdammers in actie. Integratieaanpak]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2011), Implementation programme housing vision 2010-2014 [Uitvoeringsstrategie woonvisie 2010-2014]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2013), Implementation strategy Rotterdam [Uitvoeringsstrategie Rotterdam]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2015), Integration 010 [integratie 010]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Rotterdam (2016), Policy memorandum full participation in Rotterdam 2016-2018 [Beleidsregel volwaardig meedoen in Rotterdam 2016-2018]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam Tasan-kok, T., R. van Kempen, M. Raco and G. Bolt (2013), Towards hyper-diversified European cities. A critical literature review. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tersteeg, A.K., G. Bolt and R. van Kempen (2014), Governance arrangements and initiatives in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tersteeg, A.K., G. Bolt and R. van Kempen (2017), Divercities: dealing with urban diversity – the case of Rotterdam. Utrecht: Utrecht university, Faculty of Geosciences. Schiller, M. (2015), Paradigmatic pragmatism and the politics of diversity. Ethnic and racial studies, 38 (7), pp. 1120-1136. Van Breugel, I., X. Maan and P. Scholten (2014), Conceptualising mainstreaming in immigrant integration governance. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Van Eijk, G. (2010), Exclusionary policies are not just about the ‘neoliberal city’: a critique of theories of urban revanchism and the case of Rotterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (4), pp. 820-834. Van Eijk, G. (2013), Rotterdamwet ijzersterk voorbeeld van principle-free politics [Rotterdam act
43
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 57 powerful example of principle-free politics], Vers Beton, 9 June, 2013. Retrieved from:
44
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 58 BEYOND THE MIDDLE CLASSES: NEIGHBOURHOOD CHOICE AND SATISFACTION IN HIGHLY DIVERSE 3 CONTEXTS
Tersteeg, A.K. and Y.J. Albeda Accepted for publication in: DIVERCITIES: Dealing with diversity in deprived and mixed neighbourhoods. Oosterlynck, S., G. Verschraegen and R. van Kempen (ed.). Bristol: Policy Press
Abstract
Few scholars or professionals have examined what attracts people to diverse and deprived urban areas and how perceptions of local diversities play a role in this respect. Those who have done so mostly focus on the middle classes. The picture has emerged that middle classes choose diversity, whereas lower classes are more often trapped in diverse neighbourhoods. With a qualitative study on neighbourhood choice and satisfaction among residents of different social classes in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands), this study demonstrates that diversity can positively influence neighbourhood satisfaction, and to a lesser extent neighbourhood choice, not only of middle classes but of other resident groups as well, including households in low socioeconomic positions and minority ethnic and long-term residents in diverse neighbourhoods.
45
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 59 3.1 Introduction
Cities have always attracted diverse groups of people, as they offer work, education, housing, social contacts, facilities and services. However, scholars have recently argued that cities are becoming even more diverse, in terms not only of ethnicity but of, for example, activity patterns, attitudes and perceptions, and lifestyles (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013; Vertovec 2007, 2010). In western European cities, the neighbourhoods that are most diverse are often relatively deprived (Wessendorf 2014). Low-income groups are thought to be ‘trapped’ in their neighbourhoods in terms of their residential careers, and their neighbourhoods are associated with crime, vandalism and low-quality housing, public spaces and education (Dekker et al. 2011; van der Meer and Tolsma 2014). Therefore, these areas are often portrayed in public and political debates as undesirable places to live. The negative understandings are reflected in the multitude of socio-spatial policy interventions for these areas in western Europe, for example to promote the influx of higher income groups and increase social cohesion and social mobility.
Nonetheless, few scholars or professionals have examined what attracts people to diverse and deprived urban areas and how perceptions of local diversities play a role in this respect. Those who have done so mostly focussed on perceptions of ethnocultural diversity, particularly among the middle classes. Since the 1990s, studies on social mix, gentrification and the creative class have demonstrated how an appreciation of, for instance, ethnic, lifestyle, gender and sexual diversity has attracted the middle classes to cities or kept them there (Butler and Robson 2003; Florida 2003; Hamnett 2003; Lees 2000, 2008). The picture has emerged that middle classes choose diversity (Atkinson 2006; Karsten 2007), whereas lower classes are more often trapped in diverse neighbourhoods. Yet the importance of diversity for neighbourhood choice and satisfaction has hardly been studied among non-middle-class residents.
This chapter fills these research and policy gaps by presenting a qualitative study on neighbourhood choice and satisfaction among residents of different social classes in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands). An in-depth approach was adopted to gain insight into how perceptions of neighbourhood diversity had shaped residents’ decisions to move
46
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 60 to these neighbourhoods and how the diversity affects their experiences of their neighbourhoods. The study connects the rapidly growing body of literature on highly diverse neighbourhoods to the field of residential choice and satisfaction. The following research questions were formulated to guide the study
1. To what extent was diversity a motive for residents of diverse and deprived urban areas to move to their current neighbourhoods? 2. To what extent does diversity influence the neighbourhood satisfaction of residents of diverse and deprived urban areas?
The following section provides the theoretical background to the determinants of and mechanisms behind neighbourhood choice and satisfaction in diverse neighbourhoods, demonstrating the need for research on, for example, lower- class and minority ethnic groups to add to the literature on middle classes. The research areas, methods and interviewees are then introduced in the section on the research design (section 3). The research findings section discusses 1) residents’ motives for moving to their current neighbourhoods and 2) residents’ satisfaction with their current neighbourhoods. In the concluding section, we highlight the particular contribution of our findings to existing literature on neighbourhood choice and satisfaction and urban policies for highly diverse urban areas.
3.2 Living in highly diverse neighbourhoods
Studies on the relation between diversity and neighbourhood choice and satisfaction are scarce. The topic has received most attention in the urban studies literature on suburbanisation, gentrification and the creative class. The literature on suburbanisation describes how in the 1960s and 1970s an increase in wealth and car ownership in western Europe encouraged middle-class households to leave cities for suburban areas (de Decker 2011; Jackson 1985; Loots and van Hove 1986). The inflow of non-western migrants to urban neighbourhoods that started in the 1960s further stimulated the suburbanisation. As it was mostly white people who could afford to leave the city, the process has been described as ‘white flight’ (Frey 1979; Galster 1990; Wright et al. 2014). People who could not afford to move away – namely the poor, the elderly and immigrants – remained in the city. Although this process was stronger in Belgium than in the Netherlands,1
47
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 61 the process resulted in population loss in both Antwerp and Rotterdam, as well as a poorer and increasingly ethnoculturally diverse population (Statistics Netherlands 2004; Loots and van Hove 1986; Public Affairs Rotterdam, n.d.). Whereas literature on white flight describes ethnocultural diversity as a reason for middle classes to leave the city, literature on gentrification and the creative class describes it as attractive to the middle classes. In the 1990s, these studies started to report the return of middle-class workers and households to cities, due to a new appreciation of social diversity and the improved living conditions in cities (Atkinson 2006; Butler and Robson 2003; Florida 2003; Karsten 2007; Hamnett 2003; Lees 2000, 2008).
Although it has been questioned whether the reappraisal of the city by the middle classes entails an appreciation of the diverse population or the variety of facilities and amenities that are characteristic of urban neighbourhoods2 (Weck and Hanhörster 2014), white middle-class households in diverse neighbourhoods are thought to have consciously chosen to live amidst diversity. In addition, diversity is seen as a factor that contributes to their neighbourhood satisfaction (Atkinson 2006; Karsten 2007). In contrast, lower-class and minority ethnic households in diverse neighbourhoods are often regarded as being ‘trapped’ in diversity (Florida 2005; Lees, Slater and Wiley 2008). Nevertheless, these studies rarely take into account the influence of diversity or perceptions thereof on the neighbourhood choice of lower-class and minority ethnic groups. To get a more comprehensive understanding, the present study therefore explored the importance of diversity for the neighbourhood choice and satisfaction not only of white middle-class residents, but also of lower-class and minority ethnic groups living in highly diverse neighbourhoods. In what follows we discuss what is known from the literature about the ways in which socioeconomic as well as ethnic diversity shape neighbourhood choice and satisfaction.
3.2.1 Class differences
Middle- and upper-class households have more choice when it comes to housing than households in lower socioeconomic positions. The former households living in diverse neighbourhoods can more easily move to less diverse neighbourhoods,
48
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 62 of which there are plenty in western European cities and even more outside cities. Thus, the literature assumes that neighbourhood diversity is attractive to them. Studies show that middle and upper classes are attracted to different sorts of diversity (Blokland and van Eijk 2010; Jackson and Benson 2014; Tissot 2014). An important point of attraction for middle-class households in diverse neighbourhoods appears to be the heterogeneous facility and amenity structure that characterises highly diverse neighbourhoods (Florida 2003, 2005; Hall 2015; Wessendorf 2014). Nevertheless, studies disagree on the relative importance of this diverse infrastructure compared to traditional push and pull factors such as distance to work (Karsten 2007; Lawton, Murphy and Redmond 2013; van Diepen and Musterd 2009). It also remains unclear why a diversity of facilities might be a pull factor for them.
The literature shows that middle and upper classes do not choose to settle or remain in highly diverse neighbourhood because of the diverse local social contacts they make or might make. This is because middle-class households generally do not depend on the neighbourhood for their daily activities and social network, in contrast to lower-class households (Blokland 2003; Dekker and Bolt 2005; Guest and Wierzbicki 1999). Studies indicate that middle-class households living in diverse neighbourhoods have relatively small and homogenous local networks of neighbours and other local acquaintances in terms of class, culture and ethnicity (Atkinson 2006; Butler and Robson 2001, 2003; Karsten 2007). This is the case even among ‘diversity seekers’ – residents for whom neighbourhood diversity was a settlement motive (Blokland and van Eijk 2010).
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies have explored the role of urban diversity in the neighbourhood choice and satisfaction of households in low socioeconomic positions. Highly diverse urban areas often offer affordable housing. For lower-class households, affordability is thought to be one of the most important reasons to live in diverse neighbourhoods. Because they might not have chosen to live in a diverse neighbourhood, we might expect them to feel that they are ‘stuck in diversity’, rather than to appreciate diversity.
The literature indicates that lower-class residents have more local activity patterns and social networks than middle- and upper-class residents. Therefore, the
49
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 63 presence of family and friends appears to be more important for their decision to settle or remain in a neighbourhood than it is for middle and upper classes (Amerigo and Aragones 1990; Adriaanse 2007; Fisherman 1982; Guest and Wierzbicki 1999; Völker et al. 2013). Yet, this preference does not necessarily relate to social diversity, as strong ties with family and friends in diverse contexts mostly develop along lines of ethnicity and class (Valentine 2008; Blokland and van Eijk 2010; Putnam 2000, 2007; Wessendorf 2014). Contacts with strangers and weak ties with neighbours and other local acquaintances can, however, be highly diverse, due to, for example, the local orientation of lower-class households (Amin 2002; Wessendorf 2014; Hall 2015).
The picture that emerges from the literature is that middle- and upper-class residents in diverse neighbourhoods have chosen to live in such neighbourhoods because they appreciate the specific ‘social wallpaper’ (Butler 2003) and the facility and amenity structure of diverse neighbourhoods, whereas lower classes live in these neighbourhoods because they offer affordable housing and enable them to live close to their family and friends. Therefore, we expected to find that middle-class residents in diverse areas experience diversity more positively than lower-class residents.
3.2.2 The role of ethnicity
Middle-class majority ethnic residents in diverse neighbourhoods who moved to the area when it was already diverse are thought to mostly appreciate local diversity (Florida 2003, 2005). However, the literature indicates that this is different for long- term majority ethnic residents, particularly those with few housing alternatives. For instance, van Ham and Feijten (2008) and van Ham and Clark (2009) have demonstrated that in neighbourhoods with an increasing percentage of minority ethnic groups, more people, particularly white majority ethnic residents, want to leave the neighbourhood because they are becoming more ethnically different from others in the neighbourhood. A part of this group is long-term residents who did not choose to live in a diverse neighbourhood at the time of settlement and lack the means to move away (Feijten and van Ham 2009). Other long-term residents, however, who lack opportunities to leave, adjust their expectations of
50
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 64 the residential environment to reduce residential stress (for example Brown and Moore 1970), suggesting that their neighbourhood satisfaction might not be as negative as one might expect.
Compared to majority ethnic residents, minority ethnic residents in western European cities are more often in low socioeconomic positions and hence have relatively few options when it comes to neighbourhood choice. The literature therefore indicates that minority ethnic groups in low socioeconomic positions settle in diverse, deprived neighbourhoods because of the affordable housing.
According to ethnic enclave theory, minority ethnic groups, regardless of their socioeconomic situation, are thought to settle in diverse areas because they prefer to live close to co-ethnics, who are often spatially concentrated in diverse neighbourhoods (Wilson and Portes 1980). In this respect they prefer homogeneity rather than diversity. An advantage of living in a neighbourhood with co-ethnics is the presence of specialised facilities and amenities that meet ethnocultural- specific needs (Logan, Zhang and Alba 2002). In addition, living in the presence of co-ethnics also offers entry points for work, particularly for minority ethnic groups in low socioeconomic positions (Zorlu and Mulder 2007; Zukin, Kasinitz and Chen 2016; Saunders 2010). Furthermore, according to ethnic enclave theory, living among co-ethnics can provide important personal support networks. These networks can further provide protection and security and can contribute to a sense of home (Saunders 2010; Górny and Toruńczyk-Ruiz 2014). However, living among co-ethnics can also cause negative residential experiences, for instance in the case of too high levels of social control (Dekker and Bolt 2005). An ethnically diverse neighbourhood could mitigate this, but not if ethnic communities live parallel lives (Camina and Wood 2009; Forrest and Kearns 2001). Nevertheless, a growing body of literature shows high levels of everyday social interaction across ethnocultural differences in highly diverse neighbourhoods. Referred to as, for example, ‘everyday multiculturalism’, ‘corner-shop cosmopolitanism’, ‘conviviality’ and ‘light encounters’, these exchanges mostly take place between neighbours and other local acquaintances. Inter-ethnocultural relationships mostly develop between more locally oriented residents in low socioeconomic positions, rather than middle- and upper-class residents (Fincher and Iveson 2008; Hall 2012; Valentine 2008; Wessendorf 2014; Wise 2009; van Eijk 2012).
51
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 65 In sum, one might expect that white middle classes who settled in diverse neighbourhoods when they were already diverse are attracted to urban diversity and appreciate this, whereas white long-term residents (who are mostly in lower socioeconomic positions, otherwise they would have moved) are more ambivalent about urban diversity because they settled in the neighbourhoods before they were so diverse. Minority ethnic groups are mostly attracted to neighbourhoods where co-ethnics live, preferring ethnically homogenous rather than diverse neighbourhoods.
3.3 Research in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Rotterdam and Antwerp
The cities of Rotterdam and Antwerp are similar in many respects. The former has about 624,800 inhabitants, the latter 516,000, and both are their country’s second largest city. Both are also port cities and former industrial cities, and have relatively high levels of low-skilled workers, unemployment and poor households compared to other large cities in the Netherlands and Belgium. In both cities, urban policies have been implemented in an attempt to turn the tide by attracting more middle- and high-income groups by, for example, stimulating processes of neighbourhood gentrification (Doucet, van Kempen and van Weesep 2011; Loopmans 2008). Due to their histories as international trade centres, the cities have attracted migrants from all over the world. Migrants have come to work in the docks or, in the case of Antwerp for instance, as diamond traders. They re-joined their families or formed new families. In 2015, almost half of the inhabitants of Rotterdam and Antwerp (49% and 46%, respectively) were born abroad or had at least one parent who was born abroad (Municipality of Antwerp 2015; Statistics Rotterdam 2015).
The present research was carried out in the district of Feijenoord which is located on the South bank of Rotterdam, and in three adjacent areas in Antwerp, namely Antwerpen Noord, Deurne Noord and Borgerhout Intra muros. Feijenoord has 73,079 inhabitants (2015) and comprises nine neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods studied in Antwerp have a total of about 95,642 inhabitants (2015). The case study areas are located relatively close to the city centre, in terms of both absolute distance and public transport connections. We conducted our
52
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 66 research here because the areas are characterised by an enormous diversity of individuals and households, in terms not only of income, but also of education, household composition, age, ethnicity, attitudes and lifestyles. In 2014, the largest ethnic groups in Feijenoord were Dutch3 (32%), Turkish (19%), Surinamese (9%) and Moroccan (11%), and in 2015, the largest ethnic groups in the research area in Antwerp were Belgian (32%), North African (25%), east European (10%) and other west European (6%). Whereas the majority ethnic populations of the Netherlands and Belgium are ageing, the population of the research areas is getting younger: in 2014, 32% of the population of Feijenoord were younger than 25, as were 36% of the neighbourhoods studied in Antwerp. The areas are also deprived: they are characterised by combinations of physical deterioration (low housing quality and badly maintained public places and streets) and a concentration of low-income groups (with relatively high crime rates and large numbers of people who are unemployed and on welfare benefits).
Rather than create a sample that is representative of the population, we interviewed members of as many social groups as possible, paying specific attention to ethnicity, education, income, length of residence and household composition. Interviewees were selected using purposeful sampling to ensure that we spoke with members of the above-mentioned groups (Bryman 2012). Within this framework, we used two methods. First, we approached local governance arrangements that deal with social diversity on a daily basis, most of which we knew from previous research in the area (see Tersteeg et al. 2014; Saeys et al. 2014), and asked them to introduce us to individuals in the neighbourhood. Second, we asked interviewees to introduce us to other potential interviewees (the snowball method). All interviewees were aged 18 years or older and signed a consent form. The interviews were held at people’s homes (unless an interviewee preferred an alternative place, such as a community centre, library or café) and lasted about one hour. The questions focussed on residents’ motives for moving to, living in and, where relevant, leaving their current neighbourhoods in relation to local diversity. During the interviews, we also mapped residents’ egocentric social networks of family, friends, acquaintances and neighbours, because we expected local social networks to be important for the neighbourhood choice and satisfaction of some resident groups. All interviews were taped and transcribed and then analysed using the qualitative
53
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 67 data analysis software NVivo. The interviews were held between September 2014 and May 2015.
In Rotterdam, we interviewed 56 people in eight neighbourhoods in Feijenoord. Most interviewees lived in the neighbourhoods of Feijenoord,4 Hillesluis, Katendrecht and Vreewijk. In Antwerp, we interviewed 54 people: 21 in Deurne Noord 16 in Antwerpen Noord and 17 in Borgerhout. The interviewees represented 15 and 17 nationalities in Rotterdam and Antwerp, respectively. The largest ethnic groups represented by the interviewees were Dutch, Surinamese, Turkish and Moroccan in Rotterdam, and Belgian, Moroccan, Dutch and German in Antwerp. In terms of religion, the sample included followers of various forms of Islam, Hinduism and Christianity. Interviewees’ duration of stay in the dwellings and neighbourhoods varied from a few weeks to several decades. They represented different age groups (18–88 years old), household types (single, couples, couples with children, single parents) and socioeconomic positions, referring to income and education levels. See Albeda et al. (2015) and Tersteeg et al. (2017) for an extensive overview of the demographics of the interviewed persons.
3.4 Neighbourhood choice
We know from the literature on neighbourhood choice that the extent to which residents have a choice when moving to their neighbourhoods and dwellings has important implications for their satisfaction with their neighbourhoods (see for example Posthumus 2013). Before we discuss the most important motives for moving to a diverse and deprived neighbourhood, it is therefore important to note that a few residents felt that the decision to move had not been entirely voluntary and that housing options were limited. A number of interviewees living in social housing in Rotterdam had been forced to switch social rental apartments due to urban restructuring programmes here. Other residents had limited housing options because they had been in urgent need of a dwelling, for instance because they had been homeless or expecting a child. Nevertheless, the large majority of interviewees felt that they had made a conscious decision to move to their present dwellings and neighbourhoods. In the remainder of this section we focus on them.
54
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 68 3.4.1 The availability of affordable housing
Although relocation options were sometimes limited, most interviewees felt that they had chosen to move to their current neighbourhoods. For most residents, however, it was not the diversity they chose: the primary reason to choose the current neighbourhoods was the availability of affordable housing. Many of the dwellings in the research areas are the cheapest in the city. In line with the literature, households in low socioeconomic positions5 (SEP) cannot afford to live elsewhere. Yet, different from what we expected based on the literature, households in medium or high socioeconomic positions were also attracted to the neighbourhood because of the affordable housing stock. For example, when asked why they moved to their current neighbourhood, Edward (43, Dutch, medium SEP, Rotterdam) replied:
We considered [buying a house in] Rotterdam South because of the affordability of the owner-occupied houses. I mean, it saves us €100,000 buying a house four kilometres away [from the city centre]. This [house] was affordable and large. … I will never get the opportunity to buy such a house for such a low price again.
3.4.2 Bonds with family and friends
In line with the literature, for interviewees in low socioeconomic positions and from minority ethnic backgrounds, the presence of family and friends in the neighbourhood was an important settlement motive. These networks provided interviewees with company and support; for example, they shared meals, took care of each other in the case of illness or disabilities, babysat and generally kept an eye out for each other. These strong local ties were mostly homogenous in terms of socioeconomic position and ethnicity. When Usha (27, Tibetan Belgian, medium SEP, Antwerp) was asked why he moved to his current neighbourhood, he responded: “…because all my friends live nearby and I do not know that much about Belgium yet. Therefore, it was important for me to live close to my friends.” Likewise, Willemijn (41, Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam) and her son had recently moved to her parents’ neighbourhood to be close to them:
55
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 69 It is very nice to have my parents live nearby because they are getting older. They are both 70. I can support them. Of course it is also nice for my son, and convenient for me: when I need to do some shopping, I tell him ‘Go visit your grandmother’.
3.4.3 A neighbourhood without a majority group
For some interviewees, mostly of minority ethnic backgrounds, the diversity of people appeared important for their neighbourhood choice, as they preferred to live in neighbourhoods that are not dominated by a majority group. Emre (21, Turkish Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam), for instance, reported that the commonality of being a member of a minority ethnic group in his neighbourhood motivates residents to treat each other as equals, despite their differences. It is thus the diversity of the population that was important to these residents, as Salima (38, Moroccan Belgian, medium SEP, Antwerp) explained:
I don’t think I would like to live in a neighbourhood with only Moroccan people, no. I want some variety, Belgian people, African. …I think [otherwise] it would be boring. Boring, and also everybody has the same opinion, same culture, same religion.
Diversity of the neighbourhood population refers not only to ethnicity, but also to other aspects of diversity, as Rick’s (45, Dutch, medium SEP, Rotterdam) situation illustrates. He reported that he preferred to live in his current neighbourhood, which was home to diverse types of households, rather than in his previous neighbourhood, which was mostly inhabited by couples with children, because he had just got divorced and lived alone.
Living among diverse ethnic groups or household types thus made the interviewees feel more ‘in place’ (Cresswell 1996; Wessendorf 2014). Whereas literature often highlights that minority ethnic groups are attracted to similarity by pointing out that they want to live near friends and family members, our results indicate that minority groups seek not only similarity, but also diversity.
Although for many interviewees diversity was not the main reason to settle in their
56
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 70 current neighbourhoods, it did play a role when people had to choose between neighbourhoods with different sorts of diversity. Myrthe (39, Belgian, high SEP), for example, preferred Borgerhout to Antwerpen Noord, because people of Belgian origin were a majority in the former and a minority in the latter. Yet, Nel (63, Belgian, low SEP) preferred Deurne Noord over Borgerhout because of the perceived concentration of Moroccan people in the latter neighbourhood. She said she liked the diversity in her neighbourhood, because no population group was overly numerous or dominant, enabling everybody to feel at home. Nel explained: “We don’t have ‘clan formation’, like Borgerhout, [which] really [has] a concentration of Moroccans. ...It is enormously mixed here, and [it all works] without problems.” In Rotterdam, too, people from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds compared neighbourhoods with different types of diversity when choosing their current neighbourhoods. Hagar (55, Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam), for example, chose to settle in a part of the neighbourhood with few Muslims. She said that she would never want to live near another part (Maashaven), because of the high concentration of Muslims living there.
3.5 Neighbourhood satisfaction
To examine the extent to which residents were satisfied with their neighbourhoods, they were asked to elaborate on positive and negative experiences with their residential environments. They were also asked whether they would remain in their neighbourhoods or leave if they had the opportunity, and why.
We found that residents generally experienced their residential environments positively and preferred to remain in their neighbourhoods. In Rotterdam, quite a number of interviewees in low socioeconomic positions had moved to their current dwellings within the same neighbourhood or from an adjacent neighbourhood. Furthermore, of the interviewees who had moved in from outside the area in Rotterdam, many had chosen to move back to the neighbourhoods they had once lived in. This is in line with the finding of Dujardin and van der Zanden (2014): since the 1990s, at least 35% of those settling in Rotterdam South are local residents, often of a non-western ethnicity, who moved within their neighbourhood or to other neighbourhoods in Rotterdam South. Although most
57
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 71 interviewees in Antwerp came from outside their neighbourhoods, residents were also generally satisfied and did not wish to move out. Whereas for most residents the diversity of people was not the most important reason to settle in their current neighbourhoods, aspects of diversity appear to have contributed to their neighbourhood satisfaction.
3.5.1 Diverse local weak ties
‘Strong ties’ – social bonds with close family members and friends – were an important motive not only for settling in the current neighbourhoods but also for remaining there, as they provide residents with care and support. Interviewees from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds mentioned this. In line with the literature, local networks of family and friends were generally homogeneous in terms of class, culture, ethnicity and religion. Nevertheless, interviewees from different socioeconomic and ethnocultural backgrounds also mentioned ‘weak ties’ with neighbours and other local acquaintances as a factor that contributed to their neighbourhood satisfaction. Unlike the strong ties, these weak ties were diverse in terms of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, religion and household type (see Albeda et al. 2015; Tersteeg et al. 2017). Local acquaintances were described as local people with whom interviewees had become familiar but who were not considered family or friends. The story of Maanasa (26, Hindustani Surinamese Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam) illustrates how a diverse network of local acquaintances can positively influence neighbourhood satisfaction. She had recently moved back to the neighbourhood she grew up in. “I meet many people from the old days, whom I grew up with. … When I go outside in the summer, when you go out to buy some bread, it takes at least half an hour to get home because you bump into people and chat with them everywhere”. When discussing the people she was talking about, it appeared that they were highly diverse in terms of, for instance, gender, ethnicity, age and household type.
These diverse local networks contributed to a sense of familiarity and provided residents with support. For example, Mouad and Lina (45 and 31, Moroccan Dutch, medium SEP, Rotterdam) said that an important reason for remaining in their neighbourhood was their contact with local acquaintances and neighbours
58
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 72 – with diverse ethnic backgrounds, ages and household types – from whom they regularly receive practical support, for instance when they moved into their current dwelling: “Children, men, everyone helped us.”
However, we also came across residents from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds who found it difficult to make contact with diverse others. Some interviewees perceived barriers related to class or ethnocultural differences. For example, Christiane (49, Colombian Belgian, medium SEP, Antwerp) reported: “A Belgian on the street would never say, ‘Hey, how are you, what is your name?’ No. Also not positive or not nice words, but also no bad words. Nothing, nothing, nothing to you.” Ethnocultural barriers are sometimes related to language diversity. Respondents from various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds experience a negative impact of language diversity on the social cohesion and the social mobility of minority ethnic groups. Some long-term residents, for example, complained that it was difficult to communicate with ‘foreigners’ who do not speak Dutch. Yet, some residents of non-western ethnicities were also bothered. They said that the high local concentration of non-Dutch speakers prevented them from learning Dutch. “I do not have problems with my neighbours, but I have the problem that I cannot learn Dutch. All my neighbours speak another language, for instance in the local shops. Sometimes I think I live in Turkey or I am in Morocco” (Meriam, 28, Afghan Belgian, low SEP, Antwerp).
3.5.2 A diversity of experiences and exchanges
Many interviewees said that they valued the liveliness that comes with ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. They enjoyed their neighbourhood because “there is always something happening” (Nancy, 41, Cape Verdean Dutch, medium SEP, Rotterdam). Yet, we also came across interviewees who complain about this ‘liveliness’. They related the presence of ‘foreigners’ to nuisance in public and semi- public spaces, including unauthorised rubbish disposal, spitting in the streets, playing loud music, and talking loudly or yelling. Residents attributed the negative behaviours to ‘the different cultures’ of minority ethnic groups. Interviewees in middle or high socioeconomic positions often attributed the perceived negative behaviours of minority ethnic groups to their poor socioeconomic position, for
59
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 73 instance saying that the groups’ preoccupation with ‘surviving’ prevented them from disposing of rubbish properly.
A lot of interviewees of diverse ethnicities, socioeconomic positions and household compositions said that ethnic, cultural and religious diversity offers them new experiences with, for example, different foods and cooking styles, religious practices, and marriage and family cultures. Cheng (30, Asian Antillean Dutch, medium SEP, Rotterdam), for instance, said that local diversity enabled intercultural cooking experiences:
I hang out with Turkish and Moroccan [people]. I am always curious. ‘Hi, how do you cook this, how do you prefer [that]? Oh that is a difference, but I think it is delicious.’ This way I learn new things from them. I always try, I always ask [them]: ‘If you would like to learn to cook Chinese, I can teach you’. We can help one another.
Interviewees also often pointed out that neighbours share food, referring mostly to Islamic feasts when they receive food from their Muslim neighbours. Anke (Belgian, high SEP, Antwerp), for example, mentioned that she likes the diversity because, for instance: “I get biscuits from my neighbours during the sugar feast.”
3.5.3 A diversity of facilities and amenities
Interviewees of diverse ethnicities, socioeconomic positions and household compositions in Rotterdam and Antwerp,, said that they appreciated the diverse local facility and amenity structure. It contributed to their neighbourhood satisfaction and motivated them to remain in the neighbourhood. Residents reported that the facilities met the diverse interests and needs of the ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse population. In both Rotterdam and Antwerp, middle-class residents, mostly of Dutch or Belgian ethnicities, said that they valued the diversity of local shops and restaurants, the extended opening hours of minority ethnic businesses and the liveliness they bring to the streets. According to Julia (63, Belgian, high SEP, Antwerp):
What I think is very positive, and I really appreciate, is that the whole
60
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 74 world comes together here, for instance to shop. The exotic supplies are great. The opening hours, the shops are always open, even on a Sunday evening at 9 pm you can buy food, or even a new TV. Some shops never close.
On the other hand, residents of non-western ethnicities mostly value the presence of local shops that meet their specific needs. Hannah (62, Surinamese Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam), for instance, said that she valued the local Chinese and Surinamese shops highly because they sold certain Surinamese foods.
Dutch and Belgian long-term residents complained about changes in neighbourhood facilities resulting from the inflow of minority ethnic groups (see also Feijten and van Ham 2009). These interviewees lived in the area before it became highly diverse. Some had learnt to appreciate diversity, but they still missed certain facilities that had disappeared, such as a Dutch bakery. Louisa (59, Dutch, low SEP, Rotterdam) lived in the neighbourhood of Hillesluis in which (in 2010) 81% of the residents were not from a Dutch ethnic background. She told us:
I wish there were more Dutch shops. We do not have a butcher. A Turkish butcher, but not a Dutch one. [We] do not have a bakery. …They [the non- Dutch bakeries] have really nice things, but they are often quite buttery, so that is something that you have to like then.
3.5.4 A social climate that tolerates differences
Another aspect of local diversity that contributed to the satisfaction of interviewees with their neighbourhood is a tolerant mentality of residents towards cultural differences. Three narratives can be distinguished in this respect. First, for interviewees who were members of minority groups, for instance regarding ethnicity, household type or lifestyle, the diversity of people was not only a motive to move to the area, but also made them feel at ease in their neighbourhood as they felt they were not the only minority (see also section 4.3 and Wessendorf 2014).
Second, several interviewees of Dutch or Belgian ethnicity said that living with
61
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 75 diverse income groups, ethnicities and lifestyles had made them more aware and/ or tolerant of these differences. Lily (33, Belgian, high SEP, Antwerp), for instance, said: “It has definitely opened my mind about how other people live, that it does not all have to be … white middle classes. It has made me less naive about how the world works, and that there is indeed poverty.” And Martin (66, Dutch Belgian, high SEP, Antwerp) said: “Because there are so many different people living in one street, you do not get large social groups. … People are more tolerant towards one another because everyone is different in some way”.
A third narrative about tolerance was mentioned by interviewees in medium or high socioeconomic positions, mostly parents, who discussed the value of children growing up in diverse neighbourhoods. Vera (41, Dutch, high SEP, Rotterdam) said that the advantage of living in a diverse neighbourhood is that she can send her children to ethnically, religiously and socioeconomically mixed schools, where children with diverse backgrounds play together:
I find that a very good thing. … because it [diversity] is just an everyday reality. … One day, they [the children] will jointly have to deal with it in Rotterdam, or somewhere else. The more you know about and understand each other’s life world, the more you will be able to make joint decisions on how to handle things. … Just being realistic: this [diversity] is what you grow up with, and later on you will also be part of these people. People with little money, much money, people with high education levels, low education levels, then you will know how to deal with it.
Yet, some parents regarded diversity at schools and sports clubs positively only within certain limits. They said that a low number of ethnic Dutch or Belgian children corresponds with children’s language deficiencies, bad behaviour and lower educational performance.
3.6 Conclusion
This present research sought to provide insight into how residents’ perceptions of diverse, deprived neighbourhoods affect their neighbourhood choice and
62
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 76 satisfaction. The findings show that for most interviewees, diversity was not a primary motive to move to a diverse neighbourhood. Instead, the primary pull factor to move to their current neighbourhoods was the availability of affordable housing. Even for middle-class residents, who in the literature are often assumed to move to diverse neighbourhoods primarily for the diversity, affordability was the most important settlement motive. Although diversity was thus not the primary settlement motive, it did influence the decision of a specific group of interviewees. We found that members of minority groups, including minority ethnic groups, were attracted to diverse neighbourhoods because they did not want to be the only person who was ‘different’. A diverse neighbourhood allowed them to feel more in place. This does not mean, however, that they did not look for any similarity at all. For low-income residents an important motive to move to their current neighbourhoods was the presence of family and friends, who mostly appeared to be similar in terms of ethnicity and class. Minority ethnic groups appreciated the similarity they found within their strong social ties; however, in this respect they do not differ from majority ethnic and different socioeconomic resident groups. Hence, our study shows that it is not the search for similarity that differentiates minority ethnic from majority ethnic groups, but the desire for diversity. These findings are in sharp contrast to ethnic enclave theory, which suggests that minority ethnic groups are attracted to diverse areas only by the concentration of co-ethnics.
For the majority of residents, diversity appeared to be important once they had settled in their neighbourhoods. Despite the negative discourses about diverse areas in public and political debates, we found that residents in these contexts generally appeared quite satisfied and that diversity contributed to the decision to remain in the neighbourhood – also among the low-income groups. Several aspects of diversity, including a diverse facility structure, the opportunity to have new, intercultural experiences and exchanges, and a social context without dominant majority groups, contributed to the decision to remain. Also long- term residents with limited financial resources were in general positive about the neighbourhood and its diversity. This is not self-evident, because they mostly came to live in a much more homogeneous neighbourhood and hence did not opt for diversity. Negative perceptions among this group are mostly expressed in
63
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 77 nostalgic feelings about the past, such as the changing landscape of facilities that meet the diverse needs of the population.
Finally, although we did not find much evidence for diverse social networks of family and friends, the weak ties with neighbours and acquaintances appeared more diverse than we expected on the basis of our literature review. Importantly, among all classes and ethnicities these diverse weak ties appeared to contribute to satisfaction with the neighbourhood. Moreover, for some residents they appeared to be a reason to remain in or move back to the neighbourhood.
The findings show that studies on local social networks in highly diverse contexts should focus not only on strong but also on weak ties. This difference is important, because it can lead to seemingly opposite views on local networks. The findings also show that diversity plays a role in the neighbourhood choice and satisfaction not only of middle-class residents, but also of other resident groups, including households in low socioeconomic positions and minority ethnic and long-term residents in diverse neighbourhoods. Furthermore, we found that local diversity can positively influence neighbourhood satisfaction, and to a lesser extent neighbourhood choice. Although we also came across negative experiences with diversity, the overall picture is much more positive than the literature suggests.
Notes
1 In Belgium, suburbanisation was actively promoted by the government as early as the 19th century, as well as after the Second World War (see De Decker, 2011 for more information)namely suburbanisation and urban decay. It passed a law to combat vacancy and slum housing (1995. In the Netherlands on the other hand, the government planned new housing estates not only outside but also within urban areas. 2 Another explanation for the reappraisal of the city is an economic one, described in the rent gap theory. According to this theory, there is a gap “between the actual capitalized ground rent (land value) of a plot of land given its present use and the potential ground rent that might be gleaned under a ‘higher and better’ use.” (Smith 1987, p. 462). Gentrification is seen as an economic process that partly closes this gap. 3 In accordance with the Scientific Council for Government Policy in the Netherlands, we define ‘Dutch’ and ‘Belgian’ as citizens whose both parents were born in the Netherlands or Belgium respectively. 4 One of the neighbourhoods in the research area, the city district of Feijenoord, is also called
64
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 78 Feijenoord. 5 We define socioeconomic position (SEP) according to the interviewees’ education level and household income. A low, medium and high SEP we define as having, respectively: a primary or lower vocational educational degree and a net monthly household income of <€1670; a pre-university or intermediate educational degree and a net monthly household income of €1670–€3300; a university or university of applied sciences educational degree and a net monthly household income of >€3300.
References Adriaanse, C.C.M. (2007), Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22 (3), pp. 287–304. Albeda, Y.J., S. Oosterlynck, G. Verschraegen, A. Saeys and D. Dierckx (2015), Fieldwork inhabitants, Antwerp (Belgium). Antwerp: University of Antwerp. Amerigo, M. and J. Aragones (1990), Residential satisfaction in council housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10 (4), pp. 313–325. Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34 (6), pp. 959–980. Atkinson, R. (2006), Padding the bunker: Strategies of middle-class disaffiliation and colonisation in the city. Urban Studies, 43 (4), pp. 819–832. Blokland T. (2003), Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press. Blokland, T. and G. van Eijk (2010), Do people who like diversity practice diversity in neighbourhood life? Neighbourhood use and the social networks of ‘diversity-seekers’ in a mixed neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (2), pp. 313–332. Brown, L. and E. Moore (1970), The intra-urban migration process: A perspective.Geografiska Annaler Series B, 52 (1), pp. 1–13. Bryman, A. (2012), Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butler, T. (2003), Living in the bubble: Gentrification and its ‘others’ in North London.Urban Studies, 40 (12), pp. 2469–2486. Butler, T. and G. Robson (2001), Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: A comparison of three South London neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2145–2162. Butler, T. and G. Robson (2003), Plotting the middle classes: Gentrification and circuits of education in London. Housing Studies, 18 (1), pp. 5–28. Camina, M. and M. Wood (2009), Parallel lives: Towards a greater understanding of what mixed communities can offer.Urban Studies, 46 (2), pp. 459–480. Cresswell, T. (1996), In place–out of place: geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. De Decker, P. (2011), Understanding housing sprawl: The case of Flanders, Belgium. Environment and Planning A, 43, pp. 1634–1654. Dekker, K. and G. Bolt (2005), Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups’. Urban Studies, 42, pp. 2447–2470. Dekker, K., S. de Vos, S. Musterd and R. van Kempen (2011), Residential satisfaction in housing
65
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 79 estates in European cities: A multi-level research approach’. Housing Studies, 26 (4), pp. 479– 499. Doucet, B., R. van Kempen and J. van Weesep (2011), ‘We’re a rich city with poor people’: Municipal strategies of new-build gentrification in Rotterdam and Glasgow. Environment and Planning A, 43 (6), pp. 1438–1454. Dujardin, M. and W. van der Zanden (2014), Komen en gaan 2013 [Coming and going 2013]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam. Feijten, P. and M. van Ham (2009), Neighbourhood change … Reason to Leave?, Urban Studies, 46 (10), pp. 2103–2122. Fincher, R., and K. Iveson (2008), Planning and diversity in the city: Redistribution, recognition and encounter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Florida, R. (2003), Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2 (3), pp. 3–19. Florida, R. (2005), Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge. Forrest, R. and A. Kearns (2001), Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2125–2143. Frey, W. (1979), Central city white flight: Racial and nonracial causes.American Sociological Review, 44 (3), pp. 425–448. Galster, G. (1990), White flight from racially integrated neighborhoods in the 1970s: The Cleveland experience. Urban Studies, 27 (3), pp. 385–399. Górny, A. and S. Toruńczyk-Ruiz (2014), Neighbourhood attachment in ethnically diverse areas: The role of interethnic ties.Urban Studies, 51 (5), pp. 1000–1018. Guest, A.M. and S.K. Wierzbicki (1999), Social ties at the neighborhood level: Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35, pp. 92–111. Hall, S. (2015), Super-diverse street: A “trans-ethnography” across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (1), pp. 22–37. Hamnett, C. (2003), Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London 1961 – 2001. Urban Studies, 40 (12), pp. 2401–2426. Jackson, K. (1985), Grabgrass frontier. The suburbanization of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, E. and M. Benson (2014), Neither ‘deepest, darkest Peckham’ nor ‘Run-of-the-mill’ East Dulwich: The middle classes and their ‘others’ in an Inner-London neighbourhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1195–1210. Karsten, L. (2007), Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families’ Preference for an Urban Residential Location. Housing Studies, 22 (1), pp. 83–98. Lawton, P., E. Murphy and D. Redmond (2013), Residential preferences of the ‘creative class’?. Cities, 31 (2), pp. 47–56. Lees, L. (2000), A reappraisal of gentrification: Towards a ‘geography of gentrification’.Progress in Human Geography, 24 (3), pp. 389–408. Lees, L. (2008), Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance?Urban Studies, 45 (12), pp. 2449–2470. Lees, L., T. Slater and E. Wyly (2007), Gentrification. London: Routledge. Logan J., W. Zhang and R. Alba (2002), Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York
66
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 80 and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67, pp. 299–322. Loopmans, M. (2008), Relevance, gentrification and the development of a new hegemony on urban policies in Antwerp, Belgium. Urban Studies, 45 (12), pp. 2499–2519. Loots, I. and E. van Hove (1986), Stadsvlucht? Een eeuw demografische ontwikkeling in het Antwerpse [Urban flight? A century of demographic development in Antwerp]. Leuven: Acco. Posthumus, H. (2013), Displacement myths: The real and presumed effects of forced relocations resulting from urban renewal. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R.D. (2007), E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), pp. 137–174. Public Affairs Rotterdam (n.d.),Bevolkingscijfers van Rotterdam vanaf 1868 [Population statistics as of 1868], Retrieved from:
67
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 81 A, 40, pp. 1151–1170. Vertovec, S. (2007), Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024– 1054. Vertovec, S. (2010), Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Science Journal, 61 (199), pp. 83–95. Völker, B., G. Mollenhorst and V. Schutjens (2013), Neighbourhood social capital and residential mobility. In: M. Van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson and D. MacIennan (ed.), Understanding Neighbourhood Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 139–160. Weck, S. and H. Hanhörster (2015), Seeking urbanity or seeking diversity? Middle-class family households in a mixed neighbourhood in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, pp. 471–486. Wessendorf, S. (2014), Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. Wilson, K. and A. Portes (1980), Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology, 86, pp. 295–319. Wise, A. (2009), Everyday multiculturalism: transversal crossings and working class cosmopolitans. In: A. Wise and S. Velayutham (ed.), Everyday Multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–45. Wright, R., M. Ellis, S. Holloway and S. Wong (2014), Patterns of racial diversity and segregation in the United States: 1990–2010. The Professional Geographer, 66 (2), pp. 173–82. Zorlu, A. and C. Mulder (2007), Initial and subsequent location choices of immigrants to the Netherlands. Regional Studies, 42 (2), pp. 245–264. Zukin, S., P. Kasinitz and X. Chen (2016), Global cities, local streets. Everyday diversity from New York to Shanghai. New York: Routledge.
68
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 82 SYMBOLIC BOUNDARY MAKING IN SUPER-DIVERSE 4 DEPRIVED NEIGHBOURHOODS
Albeda, Y.J., A.K. Tersteeg, S. Oosterlynck and G. Verschraegen Accepted for publication in: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
Abstract
Neighbourhood-based research on the rise of super-diverse cities has mostly focussed on the implications of living in super-diverse neighbourhoods for individual relations, and paid little attention to processes of group formation. This paper focuses on how residents of super-diverse neighbourhoods identify social groups. Drawing on the concept of symbolic boundary making, it provides insights into how residents draw, enact and experience boundaries. Using the results of in-depth interviews with residents in Antwerp and Rotterdam, we show that super-diversity complexifies but does not counteract group formation. Residents draw multiple, interrelated symbolic boundaries along ethnic, class and religious lines and lines based on length of residence, which are sometimes used interchangeably. We also show that group boundaries are dynamic and constantly (re-)created. Finally, we show that discursive boundaries do not necessarily lead to less social contact across these boundaries, thus illustrating that symbolic boundaries do not always result in segregated social patterns.
69
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 83 4.1 Introduction
The character of many urban neighbourhoods is changing due to, for example, migration flows, gentrification, impoverishment and ageing (Blokland and Van Eijk 2010; Butler and Robson 2001; Schuermans et al. 2015, Vertovec 2007). This diversification of urban life has been widely discussed in the scholarly literature, mostly in the context of European and American neighbourhoods, and is regularly described in terms of ‘super-diversity’ (Harris 2009; Vertovec 2007; Wessendorf 2014). The literature on super-diversity problematises the notion of group formation along ethnic and cultural lines, which is implied in much traditional multicultural thinking (see for an exception Neal et al. 2013). It calls for more in-depth research on the intersection between ethno-cultural diversity and other axes of social differentiation (e.g. educational level, legal statute, gender, socioeconomic position) (Vertovec 2007). Studies on super-diversity have mostly focussed on interpersonal contacts and interaction by examining the prevalence of meaningful and fleeting encounters, conviviality and daily courtesies (Amin 2002; Hall 2015; Noble 2009; Valentine 2008; Wessendorf 2014; Wise and Velayutham 2009). These studies have illustrated how ‘otherness’ is normalised in the daily life of residents of super-diverse neighbourhoods. This article acknowledges the importance of conviviality and ‘light’ encounters in accommodating super- diversity, but aims to advance the literature on super-diverse neighbourhoods by presenting an analysis of whether and, if so, how residents still conceive separate social groups in the local context of super-diverse neighbourhoods. This was explored through in-depth interviews in super-diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp and Rotterdam.
To achieve this aim, we mobilise insights from the field of cultural sociology that are gradually gaining currency in urban and neighbourhood studies (Van Eijk 2011; Jackson and Benson 2014; Sibley 2003/1995). More specifically, we draw on the concept of symbolic boundary making, which is concerned with ‘conceptual distinctions made by social actors… [that] separate people into groups and generate feelings of similarity and group membership’ (Lamont and Molnár 2002, p. 168). The distinctions ‘may be fuzzy and… soft, with unclear demarcations and few social consequences, allowing individuals to maintain membership in several categories’ (Wimmer 2013, pp. 9–10), but they may also be static and impermeable, with
70
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 84 clearly defined identities. We show how the notion of symbolic boundary making is especially useful in contexts that can be characterised by super-diversity, a notion that has been proposed to underline the fact that group boundaries are increasingly dynamic and diverse. According to the literature on super-diversity, individuals increasingly belong to many, partly overlapping symbolic categories, enabling them to switch identities situationally and making it more complex to decide who belongs to which group (Vertovec 2007). At the same time, however, strong symbolic boundaries between, for instance, minority and majority ethnic groups still exist and may lead to discrimination against minorities. One of the main advantages of the concept of a symbolic boundary is that it enabled us to address this empirical variation in group boundary making and to unpack how the increasing diversification of groups works out in everyday interaction.
To capture the diverse ways in which groups are being conceived and constructed, we focused on three dimensions of symbolic boundary making. First, we investigated which type of boundary was being drawn between residents. People use physical characteristics (such as skin colour, gender, and clothing) to separate groups. These characteristics function as the ‘marker’ of the group boundary and describe what is distinctive. Rather than focussing on one particular category of marker (e.g. ethnicity, class or religion), as many studies on symbolic boundary making do (for an overview see Pachucki et al. 2007), we employed a comprehensive approach, examining the interplay of multiple dimensions of difference in processes of group formation, and also analysed how respondents strategically positioned themselves in relation to these groups. Second, we focused on the dynamic character of group boundaries, namely their continuous making and remaking. Third, we analysed the extent to which symbolic boundaries are ‘enacted’ in everyday social interaction. This last focus is relevant because boundaries have both a categorical and a behavioural dimension. The former is related to how groups are categorised into ‘us’ and ‘them’, while the latter concerns the social behaviour that does or does not result from this (Wimmer 2013, pp. 9–10).
4.2 Symbolic boundary making
The concept of boundary making has a long but ‘fairly well-acknowledged’
71
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 85 intellectual history (Lamont et al. 2015) that goes back to the work of Weber and Durkheim, as well as more contemporary authors such as Frederik Barth and Pierre Bourdieu (Lamont and Molnár 2002). Although literature on boundary work is proliferating across a wide range of topics and disciplines (see Lamont et al. 2015), it has been particularly influential in cultural sociology and ethnic and racial studies. Recent work, for instance, has aimed to document variation in ethnic boundaries and how this is linked to institutional context, trying to understand why ethnicity matters in some contexts but not in others (Lacy 2007; Wimmer 2013). This literature entails that‘ethnicity is not primarily conceived as a matter of relations between pre-defined, fixed groups … but rather as a process of constituting and re-configuring groups by defining the boundaries between them’ (Wimmer 2008, p. 1027). Other research fields have adopted this conceptualisation of boundary making to study the construction or reconstruction of other social categories, based on for example the intersection of culture, religion, class and gender diversity (Lamont et al. 2015).
We use the concept of symbolic boundary making for several reasons. First, it acknowledges that social groups are never predefined. This means that ethnic and cultural minorities should not by definition be seen as social groups and that their members are not necessarily perceived by others or themselves primarily on the basis of ethnic and cultural markers. Second, the concept of symbolic boundary making draws attention to the dynamic interplay of multiple dimensions of difference (referred to as, for example, ethnic, religious or class symbolic markers) in processes of group formation, which is important for understanding the creation of group boundaries in super-diverse neighbourhoods. People draw symbolic boundaries to construct their own identity and can position themselves and others in multiple and changing social groups (Sibley 2003/1995). Third, it acknowledges the intersubjective and contested nature of boundary making. Symbolic boundaries are culturally shared, but are also open to interpretation (and hence also to contestation) and can be employed differently according to the situation. Furthermore, people can use a particular symbolic marker (for example ‘black Africans’) to distinguish members of groups, but give a different meaning to them (for example perceiving black Africans as hospitable, or as loud and having other values than ‘us’) (Cohen 1985). Hence, a symbolic boundary consists of one
72
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 86 or more symbolic markers combined and the meaning that a person attaches to it/them. Finally, symbolic boundaries are changeable and can vary in strength and clarity. In some societies or contexts, social groups can be neatly demarcated, and members easily classified, while in other cases group boundaries are fluid and contested, allowing individuals to switch between groups. Thus the distinction between bright and blurred boundaries is not static: a bright boundary can get blurred, and vice versa (Alba 2005; Wimmer 2013).
As will have become apparent from the examples given, symbolic boundaries can be based on different characteristics. Ethnic symbolic boundaries are the first type whose contemporary relevance we wanted to test in super-diverse neighbourhoods. Different ethnic markers can be used to construct symbolic boundaries, like ethno-national, ethno-cultural or ethno-linguistic markers. Our interest in the degree to which ethnic boundaries are still salient in super-diverse neighbourhoods is motivated by a range of studies that show that ethnic markers are commonly used and negative meanings are often attached to these markers (see e.g. Brettell and Nibbs 2011; Schuermans et al. 2015).
However, sometimes other types of symbolic boundaries can be used to downplay or overcome ethnic boundaries. One can blur, for instance, an ethnic boundary between Berbers and Arabs by emphasising that both groups are Islamic (Kanmaz 2002). Hence, the second type of symbolic boundary we explore are religious ones. The recent distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in public and political debates in Europe is an example of the construction of such a religious symbolic boundary (Kanmaz 2002; Karlsen and Nazroo 2015; Zolberg and Woon 1999). Yet, it is often difficult to make a clear-cut distinction between ethnic and religious boundaries as they are often used in close connection (Ecklund 2005).
The same can be said about class boundaries, the third type of boundary we explore. Elwood et al. (2015) demonstrated that middle class interviewees assume poor people to be ‘non-white’. Hence, the ethnic marker ‘non-white’ is connected to a class boundary in order to construct strong symbolic boundaries setting apart the poor from other social groups in the neighbourhood (Saperstein and Penner 2012). Classes as symbolically delineated and constituted groups are not to be perceived as homogenous groups and are not only about socioeconomic
73
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 87 position; these are also about education, lifestyle, consumption patterns and self-identification (Butler and Robson 2001; Elwood et al. 2015). Literature indicates that certain fractions of the middle classes distinguish themselves from other fractions of the middle classes, for instance by drawing cultural or moral boundaries (Hazir 2014; Lamont 1992). Elwood et al. (2015) found that middle class people living in Seattle also draw moral boundaries within the lower class and distinguish between the ‘good’ poor, who grab opportunities to become middle class, and the ‘bad’ poor, who do not.
While ethnic, class and religious boundaries are well-known categories for the symbolic constitution of groups, we also explored a lesser known group boundary, namely the established–outsider boundary. The idea of a symbolic boundary between ‘the established’ and ‘the outsiders’ is derived from Elias and Scotson’s theory, which posits that group boundaries are essentially defined by the length of residence (Elias and Scotson 2008/1965). This theory has been frequently used in urban sociology to study community dynamics (see e.g. Hogenstijn et al. 2008; May 2004; Nieguth and Lacassagne 2012). It describes the process of an established resident group constructing boundaries between them and newcomers (the outsiders) because the former is socially cohesive and has resources to stigmatise the outsiders and exclude them from power resources. We call all symbolic boundaries that are based on the length of residence ‘established–outsider boundaries’. While the established–outsider theory is not often explicitly used to study boundary making in neighbourhoods (see for exceptions e.g. Southerton 2002 and Tilly 2004), we distinguish this boundary because it allowed us to analyse whether ethnic, religious or class boundaries are not ‘simply established– outsider relations of a particular type’ as Elias and Scotson (2008/1965, p. 15) argued. The distinction between established and outsiders also draws attention to the importance of place as a basis for boundary making, which is less emphasised in the literature.
As mentioned, symbolic boundaries are dynamic. Wimmer (2013) described the strategies that can be used to change boundaries in detail and distinguished between ‘shifting’ and ‘modifying’ boundaries. By shifting, people change the location of the boundary, for instance by creating a subdivision, in order to create more inclusive or exclusive boundaries. Such a subdivision is created when people
74
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 88 distinguish between, for instance, ‘Western’ migrants who belong to ‘us’ and ‘non- Western’ migrants who are perceived as ‘them’. The other strategy, ‘modifying boundaries’, can be used in different ways. First, people can challenge the ‘ethnic hierarchy’ (Hagendoorn 1995) by contesting their position within the hierarchy. Second, people can emphasise other categorisations, for example religion instead of ethnicity. Third, people can change their own position, without contesting the symbolic boundary itself. In this case, they place themselves as individuals on the ‘good’ side of the boundary (Wimmer 2013). In this paper we demonstrate how strategies of changing the boundaries are used in super-diverse neighbourhoods.
A persistent challenge in the literature on symbolic boundary making is understanding the connection between symbolic boundaries and what are often called ‘social boundaries’, which are described as‘objectified forms of social differences manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial) and social opportunities…’ (Lamont and Molnár 2002, p. 168). From the point of view of the literature on super-diversity, the impact of symbolic boundary making on actual social opportunities and social interaction in super-diverse neighbourhoods seems an important issue: does the symbolic distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ lead to more durable social boundaries and to less frequent and less positive social contacts between groups? To address this, we draw on research that examined how positive or negative perceptions of social differences (i.e. symbolic boundaries) translate into everyday social interaction (Blokland and Van Eijk 2010; Van Eijk 2012; Jackson and Benson 2014; Valentine 2008; Wessendorf 2014). These studies show that negative perceptions about neighbours are often not related to negative interaction experiences. In a study of diverse urban neighbourhoods in Germany, Weck and Hanhörster (2015, p. 479), for instance, showed that middle-class families can appreciate socially diverse neighbourhoods but in practice avoid interactions with diverse local others. In contrast, Van Eijk (2012) found that negative narratives about neighbours in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood in Rotterdam can go hand in hand with positive everyday social encounters with these neighbours. So far the mechanisms behind these apparent contradictions remain unclear. In our case study, we also explored the extent to which symbolic boundaries have an impact on social interaction.
Finally, the literature highlights the importance of context-specific factors for
75
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 89 understanding concrete practices of symbolic boundary making. The starting point of this study was that current conditions in disadvantaged and super-diverse neighbourhoods are transforming well-established forms of symbolic boundary making. Processes of diversification and gentrification are changing the context in which individual and collective actors can (or have to) draw boundaries between social groups. Building further on recent literature, we therefore investigated how residents of diverse neighbourhoods draw and practise symbolic boundaries (see e.g. May 1996; Mepschen 2016; Southerton 2002; Tersteeg and Pinkster 2015).
4.3 Data and methods
This paper draws on qualitative research in several disadvantaged and super- diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands). By focussing on territorial units such as neighbourhoods or cities we avoided the ‘ethnic lens’ that takes for granted the existence and continuity of different ethnic groups and categories (Wimmer 2013). We focussed on the types of group categorisation that are employed in disadvantaged and diverse neighbourhoods to gain insight into how commonalities and differences between residents are constructed within this specific context. Such a broad analytic approach enabled us to, for instance, distinguish ethnic group boundaries from non-ethnic established-outsider boundaries which are based on length of residence. Although we observed disadvantaged and super-diverse neighbourhoods in different cities and even countries, our aim was not to compare Belgium and the Netherlands, or the cities of Antwerp and Rotterdam. Rather we aimed to explore in detail the different forms of symbolic boundary making within the context of this type of neighbourhood, while also paying attention to the specific socio-demographic processes to which they are subject such as gentrification and the inflow of migrants. In other words, we focused on the specific neighbourhood context, and did not dwell on the territorial level of the city and nation-state, although these contexts do shape the contexts for these neighbourhoods.
Within the neighbourhoods, in-depth interviews were conducted with 110 residents (54 in Antwerp, 56 in Rotterdam). By means of purposive sampling, we interviewed 45 majority ethnics and 55 minority ethnics. We spoke with people
76
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 90 from 26 different ethnic backgrounds. The youngest interviewee was 18, the oldest 88. Some interviewees had lived in the neighbourhood for decades, whereas others had just moved in. As regards socioeconomic position, most interviewees had a middle to low or a middle to high income. Potential interviewees were approached through local organisations and institutions, such as community centres. We also used the snowball method; we asked interviewees to suggest other possible participants they felt were different from themselves.
The interviews focussed on symbolic boundary making at the neighbourhood level. In order to examine how residents categorise and give meaning to the diverse population, they were asked to describe their neighbours and other people living in the neighbourhood, and the extent to which they feel similar to or different from them. Interviewees were asked to use their own definition of the neighbourhood. Most interviewees defined their neighbourhood in terms of a geographical area composed of one or more streets around their house. We then asked interviewees to describe their relationship and activities with neighbours and other local residents in order to examine how symbolic boundaries are reflected in everyday social interaction. Most interviews were held at people’s homes; the rest were held at other quiet places suggested by the interviewees, such as a community centre. All respondents were asked to sign an informed consent form that guaranteed anonymity and asked for permission to use the interview in publicly available reports and articles. This did not result in any withdrawals. Only Dutch or English speaking adults were interviewed. Some interviewees spoke and understood only very basic English or Dutch and had only recently arrived in Belgium or the Netherlands. The interviews were taped and transcribed, and then analysed using the software NVivo. The fieldwork was conducted between September 2014 and May 2015. In this paper we refer to respondents by their pseudonyms.
The population of the selected case study areas is highly diverse (in terms of parental country of origin, socioeconomic position, religion and length of residence). The super-diverse and dynamic character of these neighbourhoods provided an excellent context in which to examine how symbolic boundaries are drawn within super-diverse neighbourhoods. In Rotterdam, the research focussed on all the neighbourhoods in the Feijenoord district, which has about 73,000 inhabitants.1 Feijenoord is located on the south shore of the Maas river and is connected to the
77
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 91 city centre by the Erasmusbrug (Erasmus bridge). 66% of its inhabitants have a non-Dutch background, mostly Turkish, Surinamese and Moroccan, compared to 48% in the city of Rotterdam (Van Dun and Roode 2010). The district is also characterised by a high unemployment rate (11%) compared to the city average (8%) (idem). However, there are differences between neighbourhoods within the district. The neighbourhoods closest to the Erasmusbrug, for example, are characterised by high-rise business buildings and luxurious apartments, while an adjacent neighbourhood is dominated by social housing. Furthermore, the district is changing quite rapidly. Katendrecht, for example, was well known for prostitution activities until the 1980s. It is now a gentrifying neighbourhood.
In Antwerp, three adjacent neighbourhoods with a total a population of almost 100,000 people were selected, namely Antwerpen Noord, Borgerhout Intra Muros and Deurne Noord. The first two neighbourhoods are inside the urban ring-road, whereas Deurne Noord is outside it. The neighbourhoods have diverse populations: 68% of the residents have a non-Belgian background, compared to almost 50% in the city of Antwerp. The unemployment rate in the case study area is high (9%) compared to the city level (6%). Like in Feijenoord, there are some differences between the neighbourhoods. While parts of Borgerhout are gentrifying and experiencing an increasing inflow of Belgian middle classes, the number of minority ethnics is rapidly increasing in Deurne Noord.2
4.4 Making symbolic boundaries to demarcate social groups
Interviews with residents of the super-diverse neighbourhoods revealed that residents draw multiple, interrelated symbolic boundaries when demarcating social groups in their residential environment. In this section we discuss which types of symbolic boundaries are constituted and how these intersect.
The residents constructed symbolic boundaries using multiple markers related to ethnicity, class, religion and length of residence (established–outsider boundaries). Most interviewees used ethnic markers to describe their neighbours. Some used general ones, distinguishing between the categories of ‘Dutch’ or ‘Belgian’ on
78
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 92 the one hand and ‘foreigners’3 on the other, whereas others used more specific markers, for instance between ‘Moroccans’ and other ethno-national groups. Both distinctions were made by interviewees from different ethnic backgrounds; neither the general nor the specific marker appeared to be dominant. The meaning people attached to these categories varied. Some interviewees, for example, emphasised that ‘people of foreign origin’ are helpful, while others attributed negative characteristics to this group. A wide range of interviewees from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds linked the presence of minority ethnic groups to negative experiences, including noise, nuisance and criminality, in the neighbourhood (see also Brettell and Nibbs 2011; Schuermans et al. 2015). Categorising people as ‘dirty’ and ‘noisy’ is a commonly used strategy of boundary making (Elias and Scotson 2008/1965; May 2004; Sibley 2003/1995).
I am not supposed to say it but [I’d like to live in] a neighbourhood with more ‘native’ Dutch people. …For example, the foreign children make much more noise (Arjan, Dutch, long-term resident, Rotterdam).
Other residents used more specific ethno-national markers. Eric (Dutch, long- term resident, Rotterdam), for instance, linked the presence of Moroccan Dutch residents with nuisance. He used the same meaning as other residents but related this to a more specific ethno-national marker. His categorisation of Turkish Dutch as being on the ‘right’ side of the ethnic boundary and Moroccan Dutch as being on the ‘wrong’ side of that boundary, shows that he does not perceive minority ethnics as a homogeneous group.
Turkish people, they don’t bother you, but Moroccans, the younger generation, they are often messing around. …They steal, hack, all that kind of things.
Ethnic boundaries were used interchangeably with religious boundaries (see also Ecklund 2005). In the following quotation, for instance, an ethnic category (‘Dutch’) is opposed to a religious category (‘Islam’):
[At the soccer club] where he [my son] used to be, you feel that there were fewer Dutch children, and more Islamic. You see a difference in how they
79
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 93 speak. That was a pity. …[The Islamic children] curse very often, that kind of thing (Rachel, Cape Verdean Dutch, long-term resident, Rotterdam).
Other residents, however, carefully differentiated ethnic from religious boundaries when giving a negative meaning to some minority ethnic groups. Myrthe (Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp), for example, said that she was worried about social control within the Moroccan community and a lack of openness to others, which she connected with religion rather than ethnicity.
For me, it is a difference in openness. I mostly speak about the Moroccans, because the Turkish community here in Antwerpen Noord and Borgerhout are mainly Christian Turks.
Overall, residents of all the neighbourhoods referred less to class distinctions. When they talked about less wealthy people, most of interviewees used a purely financial marker, without giving a specific meaning to it. The ‘middle class’ category is more often the object of symbolic boundary work, particularly by long-term residents of parts of the research area where processes of gentrification are most tangible. These boundaries are primarily based not on financial markers, but on attitude, behaviour and lifestyle (see also Van Eijk 2013). In addition, in boundary work within classes there was often no clear distinction between the marker and the meaning attached to it. For example, several interviewees distinguished between middle class people like themselves, who are tolerant of people with a lower socioeconomic position, and others who tended to look down upon lower status groups. A long-term resident who lives in a deprived part of the research area bordering a gentrifying neighbourhood called Zurenborg, said the following about newly arrived gentrifying middle-class residents:
Everything is like, … we are the cool people of Zurenborg. ...A Turkish restaurant wanted to start in Zurenborg and they [the residents] immediately started a petition that it shouldn’t be there, because it was of lower status. … And that didn’t fit in the nice, cool Zurenborg. ...Then, I think, well, there you are with your tolerance and openness. ‘We are the progressive Zurenborgers’ so far (Eloise, Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp).
80
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 94 This long-term resident drew moral boundaries within the white middle class by criticising the ‘self-proclaimed’ progressive and tolerant character of middle-class people living in gentrified parts of the neighbourhoods, which she compared to the attitudes of middle-class people living in deprived parts (see also Butler and Robson 2001; Elwood et al. 2015). We also came across interviewees who drew the same moral boundary between middle-class people within gentrifying areas. Myrthe (Belgian, newcomer, Antwerp), for instance, lives in a gentrifying part of the neighbourhood (and could be seen as a gentrifier herself) and she distinguished between herself and other middle-class residents of her neighbourhood who claim to be open towards minority ethnic groups and criticise the right-wing mayor for his minority ethnic group policies, yet send their children to ‘white schools’. Although Myrthe agrees with some of the mayor’s policies concerning minority ethnic groups, she considers herself more progressive, amongst others because her children go to a mixed school in the neighbourhood. Earlier research also demonstrated that morality is a commonly used strategy to distinguish groups within the middle classes (Hazir 2014; Lamont 1992). A context of gentrification can give renewed salience to such moral boundaries.
One reason why interviewees tended not to use class to construct symbolic boundaries is because many of them used ethnicity as a ‘proxy’ for people’s socioeconomic position. The identification of ethnic with socioeconomic boundaries was also observed in earlier research (see e.g. Elwood et al. 2015; Saperstein and Penner 2012; Schuermans et al. 2015). Several interviewees talked about minority ethnic groups as being part of a lower social class. Myrthe, for example, did so and used a behavioural marker to reinforce the boundary by claiming a lack of ambition among ‘foreign people’:
I think that the standard in this neighbourhood is living on the poverty line. …But among the Moroccan families and also the others… I miss… some ambition to get more out of life, than living on the poverty line (Myrthe, Belgian, newcomer, Antwerp).
Established–outsider boundaries are also constructed in super-diverse neighbourhoods, but unlike what Elias and Scotson would claim, they do not always take precedence over other types of social distinction. Rather, they are
81
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 95 bound up in complex ways with other types of symbolic boundaries (see also May 1996; Mepschen 2016; Southerton 2002). Katharina (German Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp), for example, at first seemed to draw a clear ethnic boundary by describing the distance between herself and her Moroccan neighbours. However, when she explained why there is little contact, she drew an established–outsider boundary:
But there is some distance between our Moroccan neighbours and the others [not Moroccan families]. …You don’t share the same experiences. …We saw our children growing up here. They played together. …The new families… you miss 30 years together. …It is something different. The old structure disappears to some extent.
Following Elias and Scotson (2008/1965), we could say that the ethnic boundaries in this particular case are established–outsider boundaries of a specific type. Gentrification and other socio-demographic shifts give renewed salience to established–outsider boundaries. Who exactly is identified as ‘outsider’ and as ‘established’ is hence highly contextual.4 In Katharina’s relatively deprived part of the research area,5 she and her majority ethnic neighbours are the long-term residents and hence perceived as the established, while the Moroccan Belgian families are seen as the newcomers and hence the outsiders. However, in some gentrifying parts of the research area, the minority ethnic groups are the long- term residents, hence the established, and the majority ethnic gentrifiers are the outsiders. Rajesh (Antillean Dutch, long-term resident, Rotterdam), for instance, said that the new, more wealthy people moving in complain more and that there is hardly any contact with this group. However, he emphasised that there is a good connection with other wealthy people, indicating that what marks the difference is not the socioeconomic position, but the length of residence and contrasts in lifestyles.
Sometimes, I don’t like it [diversity]. …For example, in Katendrecht, it was always like, everyone could always play music, nobody complained. …But now, there are new people who moved in, then they immediately come like ‘no, it is not allowed’ etc., noise. …Yes, there are people with [more] money who connect with us. …But, they are also people who have lived here from the beginning, who grew up in the neighbourhood.
82
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 96 This section has shown how in super-diverse neighbourhoods, where residents differ from each other along a multiplicity of axes of differentiation, there is still ample scope for processes of symbolic group formation. Residents construct various symbolic boundaries, which are often articulated with each other in complex ways. Super-diverse neighbourhoods are by nature also dynamic neighbourhoods. Symbolic boundaries are open to continuous attempts to transform them as a result of the inflow of new waves of migrants from all corners of the world and through different migration channels.
4.5 Re-position residents around existing symbolic boundaries
In this section we show how residents, in addition to demarcating social groups through boundary making, also strategically position themselves and others in relation to existing symbolic boundaries, thus changing positions with regard to boundaries rather than changing the symbolic boundaries themselves. They do so in one of two ways, that is, by de-emphasising or undermining the importance of group boundaries (blurring boundaries) or by highlighting their importance (brightening boundaries).
We observed how people specified the marker as a strategy to blur a boundary, for instance between ‘foreigners’ and ‘non-foreigners’, and put themselves on the ‘right’ side of it. In using this strategy, people contest the marker, but not the meaning attached to it. For instance, Salima (Moroccan Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp) categorised herself as a person ‘of foreign descent’, but associated the boundary between ‘foreigners’ and ‘non-foreigners’ with nuisance and nuisance with Kosovars rather than with Moroccan, Turkish or Polish migrants. By doing so, she subtly repositioned herself (and others) on the right side of the boundary. Hence, she rejected the general category of ‘foreigners’ as one homogeneous group and blurred this ethnic boundary by specifying subdivisions. In doing so, however, she brightens another boundary by emphasising that Kosovars cause the real problem.
There were too many Kosovars, too many foreign-, well I am a foreigner
83
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 97 myself, but I found it too busy. …The garbage, it always smells there uhm, yes, I don’t know. Noisy. …Now, it is much better. [Interviewer: Who are living there at the moment?] Either Turks or Poles. You almost don’t hear them (Salima, Moroccan Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp).
Specifying the symbolic boundary was also used as a strategy by people who had already categorised themselves on the ‘non-foreigner’ side of the boundary in order to include what they perceive as ‘good foreigners’. Hagar (Dutch, long-time resident, Rotterdam) lives in a part of Feijenoord that has a small concentration of long-term Dutch residents like herself. When she explained that she would never want to live in a neighbourhood with too many foreigners, she distinguished between Surinamese and Antilleans (who make up two large communities in Rotterdam) on the one hand and other ‘foreigners’ on the other:
It is nothing but foreigners [in an adjacent neighbourhood]. …Turks and Moroccans; there are some Antilleans, Surinamese, they are totally different people. [Interviewer: How?] Different… Surinamese have of course always been connected with the Netherlands. …They of course speak Dutch well and they have yet… a bit of a Dutch mentality.
Hagar did not contest the negative meaning she attached to the group of ‘foreigners’, but blurred the existing, general symbolic boundary between foreign and non-foreign. She placed Surinamese people higher in the ethnic hierarchy (Hagendoorn 1995) than other ‘ethnic’ groups, because of the experienced ‘cultural proximity’ (Wimmer 2013) compared to Turks and Moroccans. She said she would not mind sharing her neighbourhood with Surinamese and Antilleans. In Antwerp, the Dutch are often perceived as ‘less foreign’.
A second strategy to reposition residents around existing boundaries is to emphasise other types of boundaries. Paula (Belgian, long-term resident, Antwerp), for example, was very negative about the number of foreigners living in the neighbourhood. However, when she talked about some Armenians in the neighbourhood she said that they are different because they are Christian. Religious boundaries were highlighted to distinguish within the group of foreigners and to blur ethnic symbolic boundaries:
84
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 98 We sometimes go for a drink around the corner …They [the friends visiting this place] are also all Belgians. But the boss is an Armenian. But he’s a Christian, that’s different [from a Muslim], right?(Paula, Belgian, long- term resident, Antwerp).
However, stressing ethno-national boundaries were sometimes used to blur religious boundaries. Hagar, for example, also said that she does not want to live in a neighbourhood with a lot of Muslims, but distinguished between Croat Muslims and other Muslims:
I love all people, it doesn’t matter from which country they are …but you have to [treat] each other with certain dignity, and Muslims can’t do that. …I have had Muslims next door, and I can still cry that they are gone, but well, they were Croats, I had such good contact with them.
Hagar thus tended to stress ethnic boundaries within the muslim community to reposition her Croatian Muslim neighbours, with whom she has positive experiences, while still holding on to the general symbolic boundary between muslims and non-muslims.
Third, people can contest on which side of the boundary they are, without contesting the marker or the meaning of the boundary. In fact, by using this strategy people underline or brighten symbolic boundaries. Some interviewees, for instance, related the presence of ‘foreigners’ to feelings of unsafety, dirt and criminality, yet framed themselves as exceptions on the ‘non-foreigner’ side of the boundary.
It’s bad that I have to say it, but streets where a lot of immigrants live are simply the dirtiest streets (Kamil, Turkish Belgian, newcomer, Antwerp).
In this case, the strategy of ‘individual boundary crossing’ (Wimmer 2013) was used: people place themselves as individuals on the ‘right’ side of the boundary, without contesting the meaning or the marker. On the contrary, by placing themselves as exceptions on the other side, the ethnic symbolic boundary is confirmed and even brightened.
85
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 99 In this section we showed that symbolic boundaries in super-diverse neighbourhoods are not only multidimensional but also dynamic, and that personal identifications sometimes complicate group boundaries. As population dynamics in these neighbourhoods becomes more complex, people constantly position and re-position individuals, families and even whole social groups around existing symbolic boundaries. Individuals deal with these symbolic boundaries differently, as noted by Wimmer (2008; 2013). While some contest the symbolic boundary, others only contest their own position.
4.6 Symbolic boundary making and everyday social interaction
Symbolic boundaries were not necessarily reflected in everyday interactions, confirming the findings of scholars like Van Eijk (2011), Peterson (2016), Pinkster (2016) and Valentine (2008). Most of the interviewees emphasised the pleasantness of everyday interaction with diverse others (Wessendorf 2014). Nonetheless, we did come across a few instances in which symbolic boundaries did hinder contact. One interviewee stated that his understanding of female Moroccans as people who are not allowed to have any contact with men (as opposed to non-Moroccans, who are allowed to do so), prevents him from interacting with them.
Sometimes, I meet the man living downstairs. We have a chat, because you know how Moroccans are, you cannot talk to the woman, only with the man. … They also have two daughters, but I can’t talk to them either. [Interviewer: Have you ever tried?] No, how? It is not possible. You cannot talk to them. [Interviewer: They don’t say anything back or…?] Well, they are not allowed to, right. They should not. [Interviewer: How do you know?] I just know it. I have other Moroccan friends who are relaxed, right. They tell you (Frank, Surinamese Dutch, long-term resident, Rotterdam).
Although most interviewees did not say that symbolic boundaries hinder everyday social interaction, our results provide a better insight into how symbolic boundaries and everyday interaction are related. Everyday interaction can contribute to blurring symbolic boundaries, but can also lead to brighter
86
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 100 boundaries. In line with the findings of Van Eijk (2011, p. 1), our study confirms that “neighbour interaction reconstructs symbolic boundaries rather than breaking them down.” Salima’s experiences with noisy Kosovars, Hagar’s with her pleasant Croatian Muslim neighbours and Paula’s with her Christian foreign neighbours, are all examples of the blurring of general boundaries as described in the previous section. Everyday social interaction hence made them aware that the described general groups are not homogeneous. In this sense, we can say that everyday interactions made them aware of super-diversity within the neighbourhood and the challenges this poses to the construction of neat symbolic boundaries around groups of fellow residents. However, this awareness of super-diversity does not always lead to blurred boundaries. Olga (Ukrainian Belgian, newcomer, Antwerp) said that she does not appreciate Arabs in the neighbourhood because of some negative experiences she had had with Arabs. Positive experiences could not counter her negative opinion.
Perhaps you would call me a racist, but I already thought [that the neighbourhood is] a little bit too Arabic. …I was never against them... But, [once] I was walking and behind me kids shouted at me prostitute… …I had it several times. … At the [Dutch language] course there were normal [Arabic] guys. They didn’t do especially bad things. And well, logically in every nation you have people who are good and who are bad.
Although Olga was aware that not all Arabic people are bad persons, her general opninion about this group did not change as a result of these positive experiences, confirming Valentine’s (2008) thesis that positive experiences with neighbours do not necessarily affect the general perceptions about these groups.
Although everyday social interaction can contribute to blurring the boundaries (but does not have to), it can also brighten or create symbolic boundaries. Negative experiences within the neighbourhood can contribute to the creation of a symbolic boundary, as described in the previous sections. Which boundaries are created depends on the type of neighbourhood. Whereas moral boundaries within middle classes, for instance, were often created and practised in gentrifying neighbourhoods, they were virtually absent from deprived neighbourhoods. We can conclude that symbolic group formation is not always reflected in everyday
87
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 101 social interaction, but that in some cases social interaction can contribute to the creation of symbolic boundaries, as well as to the re-creation and blurring of existing boundaries.
4.7 Conclusion
Whereas many studies on neighbourhood super-diversity have focused on the ways in which individuals deal with otherness, we have shown that despite the complex social diversity that characterises super-diverse neighbourhoods, people still conceive and form separate social groups (Amin 2002; Noble 2009; Valentine 2008; Wise and Velayutham 2009). They do so through the construction and use of symbolic boundaries. We have analysed the multiple symbolic boundaries that neighbourhood residents use when addressing the diversity in their neighbourhood, but also how both individual and groups of residents are re-positioned towards existing boundaries and how this is related to social interaction.
We found that residents distinguish social groups in super-diverse neighbourhoods, as well as that there is a diversification of group boundaries, and that group formation along clear ethnic and cultural lines has become less important (Hall 2015; Vertovec 2007; Wessendorf 2014). People use a variety of markers, including ethnicity, class, religion and duration of residence, to which they attach different meanings. This leads to multiple and dynamic symbolic boundaries in which the relative importance of the boundaries differs between neighbourhoods as well as between persons. In addition, the boundaries are often interrelated and sometimes used interchangeably. Thus when studying the formation of groups in super-diverse contexts, the most rewarding research strategy is to analyse the construction of different types of symbolic boundaries and how these interact in one particular locale, rather than focussing on predefined, singular boundaries. This calls into question the predominant focus on ethnicity in the current literature on boundary making, suggesting that such studies might not grasp the full picture. However, it also calls into question the claim of Elias and Scotson (2008/1965) that boundary work is in essence based on established–outsider relations. Although established–outsider boundaries should be taken into account, the importance of
88
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 102 these boundaries differs per situation and person and does not necessarily take precedence over other types of boundaries.
Our study showed not only that the process of boundary making is complex and dynamic (see also Amin 2002; Van Eijk 2012; Hall 2015), but also how people deal with the boundaries and how they are continuously positioning and re-positioning other residents around these boundaries. The dynamic character of boundary making often becomes clear when people experience that they themselves, or people they perceive as being similar to themselves, are situated on the other side of the boundary. The interviewees then used various strategies to contest existing boundaries, depending on the dimensions of diversity that they identify in their residential environment. While some people blur boundaries for individual residents or the whole collectivity, others only contest their own position. Much remains unclear, however, about the social and contextual conditions in which boundaries are blurred or brightened and how individual features shape these processes.
Another way in which the dynamic character of boundary making becomes clear is through everyday social interaction within the neighbourhood. We have shown how the interactions can contribute to the reshuffling and blurring of boundaries in super-diverse neighbourhoods. They can lead to the awareness that earlier predefined groups are internally diverse. In this sense, we noticed a connection between super-diversity, daily contacts and the reshuffling of boundaries. Our results suggest that everyday social interactions in super-diverse contexts can raise awareness of super-diversity and therefore create subdivisions of more general boundaries or blur these boundaries, as Wessendorf (2014) also demonstrated. We have also shown that social interaction can contribute to the creation of new boundaries or the brightening of existing boundaries. Although it remains unclear under which circumstances people brighten or blur boundaries, we showed that everyday social interaction in a context of super-diversity dynamises the process of symbolic boundary making. This idea is supported by the fact that people who did not have any contact with other people in the neighbourhood did not change symbolic boundaries (but in some cases only contested their own position) and used rather general markers to separate people into groups. More research is needed to get a better understanding of what influences this complex relation
89
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 103 between symbolic boundary making, everyday social interaction and super- diversity.
This study has several empirical limitations, which could be addressed in further research. First, our analysis of boundary work in super-diverse neighbourhoods considered only the local context and not the institutional urban and national contexts, although literature has shown how symbolic boundary work is shaped by national policy contexts (Alba 2005; May 2004). It would be interesting to investigate whether and, if so, how specific institutional settings and policy discourses influence patterns of boundary work, using a comparative institutional approach. Second, although our interview data provide first insights into the relation between symbolic boundaries and social interaction, our interviewees’ answers might not always accurately reflect everyday realities. Therefore, to investigate exclusionary mechanisms in super-diverse neighbourhoods it would be interesting to complement the interview data with participant observations. Third, we only interviewed Dutch and English speaking adults, while people who speak only other languages probably have fewer interactions with other groups, which might also be reflected in the symbolic boundary making practices. To get a better understanding of the relation between boundary work and everyday social interaction in super-diverse neighbourhoods, it would therefore be useful include this group.
Notes
1 This includes the neighbourhoods Afrikaanderwijk, Bloemhof, Feijenoord (which is the name not only of the district but also of one of the neighbourhoods), Hillesluis, Katendrecht, Kop van Zuid- entrepotgebied, Noordereiland, Vreewijk, and Wilhelminapier. 2 The statistics in this paragraph are derived from
90
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 104 References Alba, R. (2005), Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (2), pp. 20–49. Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34 (6), pp. 959–980. Blokland T. and G. van Eijk (2010), Do people who like diversity practice diversity in neighbourhood life? Neighbourhood use and the social networks of ‘diversity-seekers’ in a mixed neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (2), pp. 313–332. Brettell, C.B. and F.G. Nibbs (2011), Immigrant suburban settlement and the ‘threat’ to middle class status and identity: The case of Farmers Branch, Texas.International Migration, 49 (1), pp. 1–30. Butler, T. and G. Robson (2001), Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: A comparison of three south London neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2145–2162. Cohen, A. (1985), The Symbolic Construction of Community. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited. Ecklund, E.H. (2005), ‘Us’ and ‘them’: The role of religion in mediating and challenging the ‘model minority’ and other civic boundaries. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (1), pp. 132–150. Elias, N. and J.L. Scotson (2008/1965), The Established and the Outsiders. Dublin: University college Dublin press. Elwood, S., V. Lawson and S. Nowak (2015), Middle-class poverty politics: Making place, making people. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (1), pp. 123–143. Hagendoorn, L. (1995), Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6 (1), pp. 199–228. Hall, S. (2015), Super-diverse street: A ‘trans-ethnography’ across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (1), pp. 22–37. Harris, A. (2009), Shifting the boundaries of cultural spaces: Young people and everyday multiculturalism. Social Identities, 15 (2), pp. 187–205. Hazir, I.K. (2014), Boundaries of middle-class identities in Turkey. The Sociological Review, 62 (4), pp. 675–697. Hogenstijn, M., D. van Middelkoop and K. Terlouw (2008), The established, the outsiders and scale strategies: Studying local power conflicts. The Sociological Review, 56 (1), pp. 144–161. Jackson, E. and M. Benson (2014), Neither ‘deepest, darkest Peckham’ nor ‘Run-of-the-Mill’ East Dulwich: The middle classes and their ‘others’ in an Inner-London neighbourhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1195–1210. Kanmaz, M. (2002), ‘Onze nationaliteit is onze godsdienst.’ Islam als ‘identity marker‘ bij jonge Marokkaanse moslims in Gent [‘Our nationality is our religion’: Islam as ‘identity marker’ for young Moroccan muslims in Gent]. In: M.C. Foblets and E. Cornelis (ed.), Migratie, zijn wij uw kinderen? Identiteitsbeleving bij allochtone jongeren [Migration, are we your children? Perceptions of identity among allochtonous young people]. Leuven: Acco, pp. 115–133. Karlsen, S. and J.Y. Nazroo (2015), Ethnic and religious differences in the attitudes of people towards being “British”. The Sociological Review, 63, pp. 759–781. Lacy, K.R. (2007), Blue-chip black. Race, class, and status in the new black middle class. Berkeley:
91
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 105 University of California Press. Lamont, M. (1992), Money, morals and manners. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lamont, M. and V. Molnár (2002), The study of boundaries in the social sciences.Annual Review of Sociology, 28 (1), pp. 167–195. Lamont, M., S. Pendergrass and M.A. Pachucki (2015), Symbolic boundaries. In: J. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 850–855. May, D. (1996), Globalisation and the politics of place: Place and identity in an inner London neighbourhood. Transactions of the Institute of Brittish Geographers, 21 (1), pp. 194–215. May, D. (2004), The interplay of three established-outsider figurations in a deprived inner-city neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 41 (11), pp. 2159–2179. Mepschen, P. (2016), The culturalisation of everyday life: Autochtony in Amsterdam New West. In: J.W. Duyvendak, P. Geschiere and E. Tonkens (ed.), The culturaliation of citizenship. Belonging and polarization in a globalizing world. London: Palgrave Mcmillan, pp. 73-96. Neal, S., K. Bennett, A. Cochrane and G. Mohan (2013), Living multiculture: Understanding the new spatial and social relations of ethnicity and multiculture in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31 (2), pp. 308–323. Nieguth, T. and A. Lacassagne (2012), Space without scales: Established / outsider relations in Hérouxville. Culture and Local Governance, 4 (1), pp. 50–61. Noble, G. (2009), Everyday cosmopolitanism and the labour of intercultural community. In: A. Wise and S. Velayuthan (ed.), Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 47–67. Pachucki, M.A., S. Pendergrass and M. Lamont (2007), Boundary processes: Recent theoretical developments and new contributions. Poetics, 35 (6), pp. 331–351. Peterson, M. (2016), Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: How important are encounters in semi-public spaces?. Social and Cultural Geography, pp. 1-19. DOI:10.1080/14649365.2016. 1210667 [published online before printing]. Pinkster, F.M. (2016), Narratives of neighbourhood change and loss of belonging in an urban garden village. Social and Cultural Geography, 17 (7), pp. 871-891. Tersteeg, A.K. and F.M. pinkster (2015), “Us up here and them down there”. How design, management and neighbourhood facilities shape social distance in a mixed-tenure housing development. Urban Affairs Review, 52 (5), pp. 751-779. Saperstein, A. and A.M. Penner (2012), Racial fluidity and inequality in the United States.American Journal of Sociology, 118 (3), pp. 676–727. Schuermans, N., B. Meeus and P. de Decker (2015), Geographies of whiteness and wealth: White, middle class discourses on segregation and social mix in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37 (4), pp. 1-18. Sibley, D. (2003/1995), Geographies of exclusion. London-New York: Routledge. Southerton, D. (2002), Boundaries of “us” and “them”: Class, mobility and identification in a new town. Sociology, 36 (1), pp. 171–93. Tilly, C. (2004), Social boundary mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34 (2), pp. 211–236. Valentine, G. (2008), Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32 (3), pp. 323–337.
92
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 106 Van Dun, L. and A. Roode (2010), Economische statistiek Feijenoord 2010 Economic statistics Feijenoord 2010]. Rotterdam: COS Centre for Research and Statistics. Van Eijk, G. (2011), ‘They eat potatoes, I eat rice’: Symbolic boundary making and space in neighbour relations. Sociological Research Online, 16 (4), pp. 15–16. Van Eijk, G. (2012), Good neighbours in bad neighbourhoods: Narratives of dissociation and practices of neighbouring in a ‘problem’ place. Urban Studies, 49 (14), pp. 3009–3026. Van Eijk, G. (2013), Hostile to hierarchy? Individuality, equality and moral boundaries in Dutch class talk. Sociology, 47 (3), pp. 526–541. Vertovec, S. (2007), Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024– 1054. Weck, S. and H. Hanhörster (2015), Seeking urbanity or seeking diversity? Middle-class family households in a mixed neighbourhood in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30, pp. 471–486. Wessendorf, S. (2014), Commonplace diversity. Social relations in a super-diverse context. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wimmer, A. (2008), Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31 (6), pp. 1025–1055. Wimmer, A. (2013), Ethnic boundary making. Institutions, power, network. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (2009), Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Zolberg, A.R. and L.L. Woon (1999), Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics and Society, 27 (1), pp. 5–38.
93
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 107 94
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 108 YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE FUTURE? COMPARING THE EVERYDAY PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS OF ADULTS 5 AND YOUTHS IN HIGHLY DIVERSE CONTEXTS
K. Visser and A.K. Tersteeg This chapter is currently under review at an international journal
Abstract
Much remains unclear about the circumstances under which living in a highly diverse neighbourhood leads to positive and negative perceptions of diversity. This is because we know little about the ways in which different resident groups encounter and engage with diversity in their neighbourhoods. In this paper we explore how the different daily uses of space of adults (35-65 years old) and young people (12-21 years old) living in the highly diverse neighbourhood Feijenoord in Rotterdam, shape who they meet and befriend and how they perceive diversity in the neighbourhood. Based on in-depth interviews, we discuss how different uses of public and semi-public spaces are related to more diverse social networks and more multi-layered, fluid and normalised understandings of diversity among young people in Feijenoord, than among adults, for whom ethno-cultural diversity appeared to be the main social divider. While adults used concepts such as multiculturalism, young people saw diversity as an ordinary and practical part of their everyday lived experience.
95
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 109 5.1 Introduction
Cities in Western Europe, including the Netherlands, are becoming more diverse than ever. Concerns about the rising visibility of minority ethnic groups have triggered an expanding debate about the consequences of diversity for a sense of community and social cohesion (Stolle and Harrell 2013). Researchers have started to examine the impact of living in highly diverse neighbourhoods on experiences of diversity and social cohesion among local residents. Their findings challenge the idea that ethnic and income groups in diverse neighbourhoods live parallel lives, which dominated many studies of social mix in the 1990s and 2000s and still underlies many planning discourses in Western cities (e.g. Atkinson and Kintrea 2000; Camina and Wood 2009). Instead, the studies show that highly diverse neighbourhoods facilitate various sorts of daily encounters across differences, which evoke both positive and negative perceptions of diversity (Wise and Noble 2016). Particularly encounters between diverse people in the parochial realm are believed to stimulate positive attitudes towards diversity (Wessendorf 2014). The parochial realm is social, not physical territory that is ‘…characterized by a sense of commonality among acquaintances and neighbors who are involved in inter-personal networks that are located ‘within’ communities’ (Lofland 1998, p. 10). The simultaneous and repetitive use of public and semi-public spaces by diverse groups of people can engender such a parochial realm (Wessendorf 2014) also referred to as ‘micro public’ by Amin (2002). Hence, a parochial realm can exist both in public and semi-public spaces. Still, much remains unclear about the circumstances under which living in a highly diverse neighbourhood leads to positive and negative perceptions of diversity. This is because much remains unclear about the different ways in which resident groups encounter and engage with diversity in different spaces in their neighbourhoods (Harris 2009; Nayak 2003).
This paper seeks to provide more insight by exploring how the daily use of spaces of residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods shapes their perceptions of diversity in the neighbourhood. It will demonstrate that the local spaces that residents use, determine who they meet and befriend and how they perceive neighbourhood diversity. We will demonstrate this by comparing the social networks and perceptions of neighbourhood diversity of two resident groups who live in the
96
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 110 same highly diverse neighbourhood, yet have different daily activity patterns and grew up in a periods with different ‘spirit of the times’ (Mannheim 1952): adults in middle adulthood (35 to 65 years) and young people (12 to 21 years) in the neighbourhood Feijenoord in the Dutch city of Rotterdam. The adults in our study had their formative years during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, a period in which the Netherlands was less diverse than today, the world where the young people in our study grow up in.
The following research questions served to guide the study:
• Which local spaces do adults and young people in highly diverse neighbourhoods use? • How do the uses of local spaces shape the social networks of the adults and young people? • How do the uses of local spaces and social networks of the adults and young people relate to their perceptions of neighbourhood diversity?
So far, the social practices and perceptions of adults and young people living in the same highly diverse context have hardly been studied together. We believe that doing so provides at least two important insights. First, it shows how different ways of using the same urban space can result in different encounters, social networks and perceptions of diversity. In other words, it demonstrates that a neighbourhood does not have a uniform influence on all its residents. Compared to many working-age adults, young people depend more on the neighbourhood for their daily activities and have less choice regarding the local spaces they use, particularly in the day time when they are expected to be in school (Harris 2009). Consequently, they are often more rooted in their local environments, and as a result have a more nuanced knowledge of the neighbourhood environment than adults (Matthews and Limb 1999; Karsten 2005; Horton et al. 2014). Furthermore, more often than adults, young people use public spaces such as plaza’s and pavements as social spaces, for instance to meet friends (Visser 2014).
Second, this study provides insight into generational differences in how diversity is perceived. Young people grow up in a world that is much more diverse than the world in which today’s adults grew up. Hence, they are more familiar with
97
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 111 diversity in their everyday environments than the latter (Hoerder et al. 2005; Stolle and Harrell 2013) and have more opportunities for experiencing friendships across differences than today’s adults had in the time. Furthermore, research shows that it is difficult for people to acclimatise to new forms of diversity in their environments as they grow older (Wise 2010). The different contexts in which adults and young people in today’s highly diverse neighbourhoods grew up might relate to differences in perceptions of and engagement with local diversity. Yet, few studies deal differences between generations in perceptions of, and relations in, highly diverse contexts (Neal and Vincent 2013). In the next section we assess the literature on the practices and perceptions of diversity of adults and young people living in highly diverse contexts in more detail.
5.2 Theoretical background
5.2.1 Perceptions and practices of diversity in highly diverse neighbourhoods
Since the mid-1990s, studies on multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, and more recently super-diversity and hyper-diversity (Vertovec 2007; Tasan-Kok et al. 2014), have examined the perceptions and practices of diversity in highly diverse neighbourhoods. The theoretical and empirical works on multiculturalism have to a large extent focused on the relationship between diversity and issues like social cohesion, trust and inter-group relations. On the one hand studies, the most influential one of Putnam (2007), have primarily focused on the alleged negative effects of ethnic diversity on neighbourhood social cohesion and social capital. The studies for instance contend that in diverse neighbourhoods there are less people to identify and feel familiar with, resulting in distrust and social withdrawal (Gesthuizen et al. 2009; Lancee and Dronkers 2008). Nevertheless, such findings were criticized in the context of European societies (Gesthuizen et al. 2009; Hooghe et al. 2009) as well as on methodological grounds (Abascal and Baldassarri 2015). Contrary to these findings and theoretical assumptions stands the contact hypothesis, which produces very different expectations about the effects of diversity: direct bridging contacts with diverse others should decrease out-group hostility (Allport 1958; Tajfel and Turner 1979). This is particularly the case when certain conditions are met, for example when social interactions are
98
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 112 combined with common cooperative experiences between equals (Amin 2002).
More recent qualitative neighbourhood studies show that living amidst diversity can simultaneously have positive and negative social outcomes. They show that the actual negotiation of diversity happens at a very local level (Amin 2002; Berg and Sigona 2013; Gidley 2013). Differences in lifestyle, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age or religion become visible in neighbourhood bars, corner shops and parks (Valentine 2013). The neighbourhood, thus, forms a point of reference for understanding expressions of diversity and how residents deal with diverse others (Berg and Sigona 2013). Studies have shown that in diverse neighbourhoods residents are often open, or at least civil, towards other cultures (Wessendorf 2014, 2016; Tersteeg et al. 2017). Noble (2009), for example, describes the ways in which difference is perceived in unproblematic ways on a daily basis as ‘unpanicked multiculturalism’, contrasting it with the ‘panicked multiculturalism’ that is common in today’s debates on multiculturalism and mainly focuses on conflicts and tensions between different ethnic groups (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010). Yet, in her study of encounters with difference Valentine (2008, p. 332) shows that ‘positive encounters with individuals from minority groups do not necessarily change people’s opinions about groups as a whole for the better.’ In other words, daily courtesies in public space often coexist with privately held prejudiced views (Noble 2011; Watson 2006; Wise 2005). Also other studies have shown a complex interplay between perceptions and practices, and that sometimes behaviour and views might even be contradictory (e.g. Blokland 2003; Watt 2006; Fortier 2007; Lobo 2010). Indeed, Wise and Noble (2016, p. 425) argue that living together amidst differences‘includes an emphasis on practice, effort, negotiation and achievement. This sense of ‘rubbing along’ includes not just ‘happy togetherness’ but negotiation, friction and sometimes conflict.’
Although most studies of perceptions and practices of diversity focus on adults, recently, scholars have started to specifically pay attention to young people as well. Valentine and colleagues (see Valentine and Sadgrove 2012; Valentine 2013), have for example investigated what kind of encounters between young people produce meaningful contact, thus change values and translate into a more positive attitude towards ‘the other’. They focus on semi-public sites such as youth clubs and sport clubs, where people from diverse backgrounds encounter each other and
99
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 113 can learn new ways of living together. Similarly, Neal and colleagues (Iqbal et al. 2016; Neal et al. 2016; Vincent et al. 2016) illustrate how children in super-diverse neighbourhoods in London encounter diverse others through schools, and that interactions across differences at school radiate out to other local social spaces, both public and private.
Studies on practices and perceptions of diversity thus show that through regular encounters, differences across ethnic, religious, class and other boundaries can be bridged and stereotypes broken. It is, however, important to note that people in the same neighbourhood do not always have the same encounters: they differ in the places they visit during a day and the people they meet. In this paper we contend that perceptions of diversity depend on the spaces people visit, the people they encounter there and the social networks that emerge from these encounters. Because ‘prosaic negotiations’ are compulsory in semi-public spaces, they are considered the ideal sites for the development of relations across differences (Amin 2002). These spaces, such as community centres, libraries, schools and sports clubs, encourage repetitive encounters, and the simultaneous use and intermingling of diverse groups (Amin 2002; Nava 2007; Harris 2009). However, authors such as Lofland (1989) and Wessendorf (2014, p. 393) have demonstrated that such ‘parochial realms’ can sometimes also develop in public spaces, as the latter explains: ‘a corner shop or a market where traders and costumers meet on a regular basis can take on the characteristics of the parochial realm because the social relations developed in these places can become habitual and frequent’. According to Wessendorf it is within the parochial realm that ethno-cultural differences are negotiated, both resulting in positive relations and social tensions.
5.2.2 Young people versus adults
To our knowledge, the social-spatial practices of adults and young people and their perceptions of diversity in highly diverse neighbourhoods have not been compared in one single study. Yet, we expect generational differences between the engagement with and perceptions of diverse others in the neighbourhood between the two due to differences in (1) the ‘spirit of the times’ they grow up in and (2) their activity patterns.
100
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 114 Different generations grow up in very different conditions. As argued by Mannheim (1952), shared experience of growing up in a particular time and sharing historical events are likely to produce commonalities in social identities and cultural traditions. This ‘spirit of the times’ is an important predictor of attitudes to diversity (Ford 2012). Migration flows in a certain period can influence this spirit of the times. Research in countries with a long history of migration (Alba 1990; Ford 2012), for example, shows that older generations who grew up in a society before the arrival of a certain migrant group tend to see this group as alien and as a negative influence, while those growing up after the migrant group began to settle had more social contact with group members, and was more accepting towards the group. Moreover, from these studies we also know that those who grow up in a homogeneous society are likely to regard homogeneous culture, religion and values as natural and desirable. They are likely to draw boundaries based on ethnicity, culture and religion. If migration occurs after they have formed this sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ they are likely to regard migration as threatening to their community. Those who grow up in an already diverse society are familiar with this diversity and therefore are more likely to accept, appreciate or even engage with it (Ford 2012; Wise 2010). Language barriers can reinforce processes of us and them (Reitz and Sommerville 2004), particularly when a first generation of migrants arrives, who have (had) less access to language education than later generations.
Secondly, we expect a difference between adults and young people because of differences in their activity patterns and the formation of social networks. Our argument here is that young people are focused on their neighbourhood more and in different ways than adults. Young people have fewer freedoms and less autonomy over money than adults (Harris 2009). Therefore, they are by necessity more rooted in their local environments. They make use of different types of local spaces than adults and this might influence whom they meet. Young people’s activities often take place on the streets. Through walking around the neighbourhood and hanging out, young people develop a close and detailed knowledge of their environment and community (Horton et al. 2014). Several scholars have shown that children and young people spend more time using neighbourhood spaces compared to adults and tend to have far more nuanced knowledge of local urban
101
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 115 environments (Matthews and Limb 1999; Karsten 2005; Horton et al. 2014). High levels of overcrowding such as in our case study area Feijenoord can force young people to spend most of their spare time on the street. In contrast, adults generally spend more time in the privacy of their homes. Furthermore, as adults have less spare time than young people we expect them to be more selective in terms of the people they meet when using semi-public and public spaces in the neighbourhood. In contrast with youths, adults for instance appear to have relatively few interactions with diverse others in public spaces such as parks, plaza’s and streets, and use these spaces either as passage way or to meet friends and family who are often fairly similar in terms of class, ethnicity and lifestyle (Amin 2002; Wessendorf 2014). Furthermore, adults have more opportunities to undertake activities outside of their neighbourhood, as they more often have the financial means and transportation to travel to these places.1 Particularly schools, sports clubs and youth clubs in highly diverse neighbourhoods are places where young people interact with peers with different cultural and sometimes class backgrounds on a daily basis. These interactions across differences in the parochial realm might make diversity more ‘commonplace’ (Wessendorf 2014) and perhaps therefore positive for young people than for adults.
5.3 Methods
The research was carried out in Feijenoord (72,400 inhabitants in 2014), a district of Rotterdam. Feijenoord is located south of the river Meuse, an area that has traditionally been the poorer part of the city. It is one of the most diverse areas in the Netherlands. It is characterised not only by a multiplicity of minority ethnic groups but also by differentiations regarding migration histories, religions, households types, ages, and educational and economic backgrounds, both among long-term residents and newcomers. The largest non-Dutch groups are Turkish (19%), Surinamese (11%), Moroccan (10%) and Dutch Antillean (4%). Compared to the city average, the population of Feijenoord is characterised by relatively low income and education levels and high unemployment levels (see table 1). Moreover, the area is blighted with such problems as low levels of perceived safety, nuisance from youths and drugs use. In the areas closest to the city centre, gentrification processes can be witnessed, which are reflected in the lower levels
102
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 116 of people from a non-western background and a slightly higher socio-economic position. In the east on the other hand, there is a small concentration of white, elderly, former-working-class households.
Both youths and adults were recruited by means of ‘purposeful’ sampling with the aim to generate a mix of interviewees in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. Interviewees were recruited through community organizations, in the streets, at their homes, and through a snowballing method to include both residents active in local community centres and residents who are not. We conducted 27 interviews with youths, aged 12 to 21 years, 19 boys and 8 girls and 39 with adults, aged 35 to 65 years, 25 women and 14 men. We interviewed people of 15 different ethnic backgrounds, of which most identify their ethnicity as Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, Dutch Antillean or Pakistani.
The interviews with both youths and adults focused on perceptions of urban diversity; socio-spatial activities; diversity of encounters in places inside and outside the neighbourhood; diversity of local social networks and resources present in these networks. They were transcribed in their entirety and then coded in NVivo. Participants were assigned pseudonyms, which are used throughout this chapter to protect the participants’ confidentiality.
Table 1. Socioeconomic and ethnic composition of the selected neighbourhoods Low income Employment Persons without Total non-western households basic qualification in education * % % % % Afrikaanderwijk 49 39 42 80 Bloemhof 38 44 44 65 Feijenoord 45 42 36 76 Hillesluis 36 46 32 74 Katendrecht 19 56 22 48 Kop van Zuid-Entrepot 16 57 22 51 Vreewijk 34 50 35 29
Rotterdam 21 58 23 37
Source: Municipality of Rotterdam, Neighbourhood Profile Rotterdam 2014 *A diploma at the level of senior general secondary education (havo), pre-university education (vwo), or senior secondary vocational education (mbo).
103
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 117 The fieldwork also included observations in the area, the attendance of meetings at community and youth centres, and informal conversations with residents, community workers and teachers. Notes were taken based on these observations and conversations and this information was used to inform the theorising about the topic.
5.4 Results
In what follows we compare the use of spaces, the social networks and the perceptions of diversity of adults and young people in Feijenoord and illustrate that differences in daily activity patterns and the social networks that emerge from these activities are related to differences in perceptions of diversity between adults and young people.
5.4.1 The uses of neighbourhood space
To provide insight into the use of (neighbourhood) space we talked with interviewees about their daily activity patterns and asked them to identify the public and semi-public spaces that they use in the neighbourhood. We then asked interviewees to describe the other users of these spaces, and to what extent they interact with them. We find clear differences in the type of local spaces that adults and young people use.
Adults Interviews and observations indicated that local public and semi-public spaces in Feijenoord are used by a wide variety of resident groups. However, only semi- public places functioned as facilitators of exchanges between ‘diverse others’. Particularly shared spaces with neighbours nearby the house such as courtyards, gardens and hallways and local institutions such as children’s schools, community centres and religious institutions appear important for interactions between residents with diverse backgrounds. The spaces act as parochial realms where the ‘thrown-togetherness’ of the micro-neighbourhood (Massey 2005) encourages residents to interact with each other, as the following quote of Cynthia (48, Surinamese Dutch) about her nearby neighbours explains:
104
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 118 Yes there is some contact [between neighbours]. When you live in this street, it is situated around a courtyard, so you are forced to walk rounds and then you greet each other. And we have a shared shed, so everybody enters and exits that one, so you have contact. You do greet each other, yes.
Adults generally visit local institutions on a voluntary basis and have autonomy over where they go, for how long and hence whom they meet in these local institutions and in shared spaces with neighbours around the house. The purposes of visits of local institutions are almost never to encounter new people however. Instead, adults for instance visit a local library to read or borrow books, a community club to follow a course or volunteer, or a primary school to drop off and pick up their children. It is important to note that residents with a medium or high SEP2 appear to visit local institutions less frequently than residents with a low SEP do. The former make use of activity spaces that are often further away from their home and seem more exclusive, such as private music or ballet classes for their children. Residents with a low SEP are more dependent on local facilities and hence more exposed to the neighbourhoods diversity than those with a medium or higher SEP. Except for the predominantly low SEP of visitors, many local institutions including community centres and schools are used by a variety of groups, in terms of age, lifestyle, culture and ethnicity. Bouchra (59, Moroccan Dutch) participates and volunteers at a community centre where many different activities are organised and many different social groups meet. She discussed the centre as follows:
Here, we do not only follow courses, we also talk with one another about the past, children …We have Arabic and Dutch language classes with books, computer, cooking, and knitting classes and we arrange swimming classes. ...In the living room I talk with participants other Moroccan women, but also with Dominican women. They are lovely. And also five Dutch women, they are also very nice.
For many visitors of local institutions such as community centres, schools and religious institutions, the spaces act as parochial realms: meeting the same people over and over again eventually creates an intimate and homey atmosphere and stimulates amicable encounters, especially within organized activity groups
105
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 119 (Lofland 1989; Peterson 2015). However, it has to be noted that only a limited group of residents made use of these facilities, whereas – as we will see below – young people make use of spaces where they more frequently encounter diverse others. Furthermore, even within parochial realms adults appear to bond most easily with people with a similar ethno-cultural background. As Peterson (2016, p. 11) argues this is because ‘shared [ethno-cultural] customs, traditions and language provide …[an] emotional bonding factor by letting participants identify with each other more easily’.
Young people Whilst for adults, public space is mainly a place to pass through, for the young people it is place for hanging around for longer periods of time. Much of their leisure time – that is the time outside of the demands of school and part‐time jobs – was spent in the company of peers in the public spaces of their neighbourhood, walking or cycling around, shopping, sitting, talking and eating together. The street was one of the few places where young people could hang out in a context that is away from the institutional restrictions of school or the watchful eye of family members. Whilst adults are able to withdraw to their homes, workplaces or pubs, young people tend to be restricted to particular public places. In line with Wessendorf (2014) we therefore argue that through these regular encounters with peers at street corners, parks and squares, young people transform public spaces into parochial realms. It is particularly in these places that young people meet diverse others. Salma (15, Moroccan Dutch) describes her leisure activities as follows:
[We are] just boys and girls, fifteen to seventeen years old, various cultures, if you like. We all get along well. When we’re bored, we go and play football or buy sunflower seeds. We go for a walk, or something.
Spending free time on the streets with others had social and psychological importance and was often talked about positively. The street was seen as a social haven, a place for meeting with friends, hanging out and ‘where things happened’ (Matthews 2003).
Important to note here is also that these street corners, playgrounds and parks
106
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 120 are the places were young people meet each other for the first time, as younger children or when they move to the neighbourhood. As the quote of Salma also illustrates, the young people often hang around at playgrounds or parks nearby their home and they will automatically encounter diverse others in these places. The young people in our study indicate that almost all places for hanging out attract a mixed crowd; there are hardly any places that are occupied by one single ethnic group. When asked how Lina (16, Moroccan Dutch) got to know her friends, she explains:
Well, just from the neighbourhood. The two playgrounds opposite of my house are the central playgrounds for us. …This is where you get to know each other, hang out together. During the breaks at school our class used to go to the playground. That is also how you get to know each other.
Besides encountering people with diverse ethnic backgrounds when hanging out on the street, like adults, the young people also encountered others in the semi-public spaces of youth and sports clubs, and schools. The diverse population composition of the neighbourhoods is reflected in the composition of these spaces. The most notable parochial realm in this respect is the school. The majority of the respondents attended secondary school or senior secondary vocational education (MBO) in Feijenoord, or at least in the southern – more diverse – part of the city. Also here they encountered diverse others. As noted by Yvette (18, Surinamese Dutch) about her friends at secondary school (where she graduated 1,5 year earlier):
In my class everybody hung around with everybody, there were no fights, nothing. Like a family. We still see each other …We liked watching movies a lot, in particular one type of movie, Bollywood, Indian films. And then we imitated these dramatic parts, wherever we were at that time, in class, in the halls, at the courtyard. Interviewer: And what were the ethnic backgrounds of these people? One of them was Afghan, three were Chinese, three were Hindu and the rest was Turkish.
Moreover, also at youth and sport clubs the ethnic composition was largely mixed
107
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 121 and observations showed that young people – primarily boys – from different ethnic backgrounds at these clubs hung around with each other, crossing ethnic boundaries. Yet, we found that while young people were open towards hanging around with people from other backgrounds, they were sometimes restricted in this by their parents. Parents sometimes had certain prejudices about other ethnic groups or regarded it inappropriate for their children to hang around with other ethnic or gender groups based on their own cultural norms and values. Nancy (41, Cape Verdean Dutch), for example, told us that she recently made one of her children switch from a local football club “…with few Dutch children and many Islamic [children]” to a club with fewer Islamic children further away because of the perceived poor quality of the trainers and the aggressiveness of some children at the former club and their use of foul language, which she linked to their Islamic background.
5.4.2 Social networks
In addition to discussing the use of neighbourhood semi-public space by youths and adults and the diverse others they encounter there, it is important to investigate to what extent these encounters translate into diverse social networks. We therefore mapped the egocentric social networks of the two groups. We examined to what extent the egocentric networks are local and diverse, as well as the function of the networks in terms of activities and support.
Adults When discussing their local social contacts, adults distinguished between bonds with family and friends on the one hand, and acquaintances and neighbours on the other.3 Both local and non-local ties with family and friends appeared relatively homogenous, particularly in terms of ethnicity and education. Moreover, most adults had contacts in and outside of their neighbourhood. The social networks of adults with a relatively low SEP are to be more local than those of adults with a high education level.
However, ties with neighbours and other local acquaintances are generally diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, lifestyle and religion. The shared use of spaces with neighbours around the house and semi-public spaces such as community centres
108
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 122 and schools appear to be catalysers for the development of diverse ties between local acquaintances. Networks of local acquaintances and neighbours were particularly important for interviewees with a low SEP and those with children, because they provide them with forms of support that friends and family sometimes cannot provide (enough). Interviewees discuss receiving companionship, informational/ advisory support and practical support. For example, Hannah (62, Surinamese Dutch) divorced three years ago and presently lives by herself. She works as a part-time nurse. She has the need for daily company, which her family cannot always offer. Therefore she visits a local community centre every morning, where she meets Molly, a Hindustani Dutch middle aged lady who lives in Feijenoord as well:
That lady, Molly! We sometimes go there [community centre] Monday to Friday. Every day, just stay a short while. Mostly in the mornings. We sit in the large room, I’ll be busy with my clothes [sewing] and Molly will be drawing. Interviewer: So are these mostly local people whom you meet there? Hannah: Yes! Interviewer: Do you ever meet those people outside the community centre? Hannah: Sometimes. But when I go there it is really just that we do our own thing. There is also a boy whom I talk with often. They all live in the neighbourhood.
In the interview Hannah clearly indicates that she does not consider Molly to be a friend, but rather an acquaintance. Also other interviews show that relations formed with people of other ethnic and religious backgrounds in the parochial realm are seldom translated into the private realm and become (long-lasting) friendships (Wessendorf 2014).
Interviewees with diverse socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds argue that people from migrant backgrounds speaking their mother tongue in public and semi-public spaces counters inter-ethnic contact and sometimes causes feelings of exclusion. Rick (45, Dutch) and Sonia (41, Moroccan Dutch) for instance explain how hearing groups of e.g. youths or women, speaking in a foreign language makes them feel excluded (see also Atkinson and Kintrea 2000). The interviewees
109
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 123 predominantly emphasised the impact of minority ethno-cultural groups, particularly first generation migrants, not being able to speak or understand Dutch. Miranda (50, Dutch):
What I think is a shame is that there are many people living here that don’t realise that learning Dutch would change their experiences of living in this neighbourhood, the contact between neighbours. Now you really continue to have little islands within the neighbourhood. You see when people do speak Dutch, they automatically have much more contact. Sometimes you see that people really want to... but if ‘good morning’ is the only Dutch you know, it will become very difficult.
This is in line with the hypothesis from migration research (Wimmer 2004) which states that the first generation migrants remains dependent on relationships with persons of the same background because of language difficulties and because of mutual aid among persons sharing a similar cultural background.
Young people Compared to the adults, the interviewed young people’s (physical4) social networks were on average more neighbourhood based. The majority of the young people indicated that their friends lived in the Feijenoord area, or at least in the Rotterdam South district. This is not surprising, since – as shown above – most of the young people’s activities took place in the neighbourhoods streets and parks, or in schools and community centres that were often also situated in the neighbourhood.
The social networks of youths appeared more diverse in terms of ethnicity, than those of adults. Numerous examples were provided of social relations across ethnicities. This was the case for both youth with Dutch as well as other ethnic backgrounds. As Badr (19, Moroccan Dutch), illustrates:
My group of friends is very multicultural. There are Surinamese, Spanish people, Dominicans …you just have to get along with them. That’s just fun, it’s much better than only hanging around with Turks or Moroccans. You just have to mix.
110
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 124 What was also different from the adults was that for the young people the distinction between close friends and acquaintances was not very clear. Most of the time the young people referred to the group they hung out with, which could differ in composition depending on time and place. Several of the young people indicated that others were welcome to join their group irrespective of cultural or ethnic background. In other words, young people’s social networks were more fluid that those of adults, and as a result also allowed for more diversity. As noted by Mehdi (16, Moroccan Dutch) about the backgrounds of people he hangs out with:
I don’t care. Everybody is welcome, it doesn’t matter which colour your skin is. We’re all just humans right? ...As long as you’re fun to hang around with, it’s ok.
These mixed networks also were a source of social support. Similar to the adults, the young people discuss receiving and giving companionship, informational/ advisory support and practical support. Hamza (16, Moroccan Dutch) discusses the benefits of going to a diverse school:
You can learn from each other. When you can’t ride the bike, maybe someone can help you. When you want to swim, someone can teach you. If you don’t know how to study for a test, someone can help you as well. Also when you’re not behaving well, someone can help you, he can learn you how to stay quiet in class.
The narratives of the young people show that the barriers to establishing mixed networks as experienced by the adults was not experienced as such by the young people. Language (apart from perhaps a street language), for example, is no longer a factor that binds people in social networks or excludes others, as was the case for adults. Also the fact that young people encounter diversity at a very young age, and are used to meet others in parochial realms such as the playground, the school and the youth club, makes that it is easier for them to form mixed social networks.
111
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 125 5.4.3 Perceptions of diversity
To determine how the use of public and semi-public space and social networks of residents relate to their perceptions of local diversity, interviewees were asked to elaborate on their neighbours and the wider neighbourhood. Interviewees were subsequently asked to describe and evaluate their neighbours and discuss positive and negative experiences with the neighbourhood.
Adults Adults generally appreciated diversity in the neighbourhood. The most important feature defining local diversity was ethnicity, followed by gender, household type and age. When asked to describe her next-door neighbours, like most adults, Sonia (41, Moroccan Dutch) responded:
There is a Dutch man who lives next-door, I hardly see him. I sometimes wonder whether he still lives there. Upstairs an Algerian man. Downstairs a Surinamese woman and at the bottom floor, she comes from Eritrea. A very kind woman. Then there is also a Hindustani woman who lives at the bottom floor. …Upstairs there is also a Moroccan couple. Have not seen them for ages.
Also when discussing positive and negative experiences with diversity in the wider neighbourhood, ethno-cultural diversity appeared to be the main denominator. Adults generally appreciated the diversity in their neighbourhood because of the lively and busy residential atmosphere and culturally rich variety of shops and other facilities that comes with ethnic diversity. Many also value the opportunity to learn about different cultures and to exchange new experiences. Dunya (40, Surinamese Dutch) explains:
The diverse and mixed cultures in the neighbourhood make it fun. Interviewer: What do you think is fun? The liveliness, differences, like yesterday I was walking that way and suddenly I heard a sound ‘oooow’, it was a wedding. …The happiness, the atmosphere that comes with it. You can see the people sing and dance [in the streets], and then I surely go have a look, to see what is happening.
112
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 126 Furthermore, some adults who belong to a minority group, e.g. on the base of ethnicity, SEP or lifestyle, argued that a diverse social context without majority groups offers them an environment in which they feel less ‘out of place’ than in more homogenous neighbourhoods (Wessendorf 2014, 2016). The commonality of belonging to a minority group stimulates a sense of belonging and enables residents of Feijenoord to treat each other as equals (Wessendorf 2016). Some of them even argue that for this reason they prefer not to live in a neighbourhood with a majority of white Dutch residents.
The other way around, long-term Dutch residents express the feeling of being less ‘in place’ in their neighbourhood due to the increasing flow of minority ethnic groups to the area. Some expressed dislike with the gradual disappearance of certain facilities such as a ‘Dutch’ butcher or traditional Dutch pubs (‘brown cafés’) and felt that they were now ‘the minority’ (Hudson 2008). This does not mean that they dislike the area’s diversity. Many long-term residents have got used to the area’s diversity and dynamism, and appreciate aspects of it. Yet, the praising of diversity is combined with a concern for the preservation of control over place. Louisa (59, Dutch) has been living in the neighbourhood for 59 years. When she grew up, the neighbourhood was predominantly white working-class. She argues:
I wish there would be more Dutch shops. We do not have a butcher. A Turkish butcher, but not a Dutch one. Do not have a bakery. Interviewer: What is the difference?. Louisa: The pastries. They have really nice things, but they are often quite buttery, so that is something that you have to like then. Interviewer: Do you miss particular foods? Louisa: The local foods are very spicy. Interviewer: What about the butcher? Louisa: The sausages would be the problem there. I have to go to the super market for them. …A Dutch butcher would be nice, even though I do not mind visiting Turkish or Moroccan bakeries.
Several long-term residents indicate a certain feeling of nostalgia for Feijenoord’s ethnically more homogenous past (see also Jones 2014; Watson and Wells 2005). They refer to a past with more support relations between neighbours and less
113
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 127 vandalism by young people in the streets. The changes are connected to an increase in non-white Dutch residents in their neighbourhood. Underpinning her perceived loss, Hager (55, Dutch) talks about her daughter who still lives in such a traditional place:
My daughter lives on an old dike. Everyone takes care of each other there, everyone! They [daughters’ family] live among families who have lived there all their lives. My son in law never, ever needs to put out his trashcan, because his neighbour Pete does it. When they are away, and there are problems, for instance a flooding, when they come back home, the neighbours will have cleaned and dried the entire house for them. They have each other’s keys… Interviewer: So, in her neighbourhood people help one another? Hagar: There, they still do, yes.
Young people When asked to describe their neighbours5 and evaluate their neighbourhood, we did come across some important differences in the perceptions of diversity among adults and youths. While ethnic diversity was the main factor determining local differences according to most adults, youths generally defined diversity by lifestyles, behaviour, place of residence and subcultures. An important theme that emerged form youths’ interviews was the ‘normality’ of difference (see also Harris 2016; Wessendorf 2014). This is best illustrated by the fact that when the young people were asked to list the most important ‘groups of young people in their communities, they found this very difficult. Many asked what was meant with ‘groups’, and when explained the majority indicated that such groups did not really exist in their neighbourhood and that ‘everybody hangs around with everybody’. When certain groups were identified those were often based on various kinds of subcultures (dancers, soccer players, basketball players), the school they went to or the neighbourhood they were from (e.g. ‘Bloemhof’ kids, see also Visser 2016), or the ‘bad kids’ versus the ‘decent kids’.
When asked about what the young people liked and disliked about their neighbourhood, ethnicity did not come up as either a reason for being positive or negative about the neighbourhood. For the young people the social cohesion in
114
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 128 the neighbourhood was mentioned as one of the most important positive points. Salma (15, Moroccan Dutch), describes her neighbourhood as follows:
If you’d ask me about my neighbourhood, well, the neighbourhood is simply boys and girls, mixed, who sometimes like each other. The community, we’re not like neighbours or friends, we’re like brothers and sisters. Because, I grew up with most here. I used to play with them a lot. They know my parents. It is just normal to see each other.
When explicitly asked what they liked about living in a diverse neighbourhood similar topics came up as in the interviews with adults, like learning from each other’s cultures and languages, and enjoying each other’s foods. Savas (17, Turkish Dutch) tells the following:
I like it [to live in a diverse neighbourhood], because you learn from all the different cultures. You are going to need this when you get a job, because then you’re also not only working with Turkish or Moroccan people, you’ll be also working with Dutch and Antillean people, for example.
The young people were also well aware of negative aspects of their neighbourhood, but again, at first, these negative perceptions were not strongly related to (ethnic) diversity. Rather, most negative perceptions were related to criminality and safety issues in the area, as Ayoub (15, Moroccan Dutch) noted: ‘There are many troubled youths, causing nuisance. Police comes by often. Destructions, common vandalism, bus shelters are being vandalised’. These negative perceptions, however, were often not tied to specific ethnic groups by the young people. Instead young people often referred to issues of stereotyping and negative labelling by outsiders. For example, participants spoke of the way that young men were stereotyped on the basis of their youth and race. Moreover, issues like discrimination based on wearing the headscarf and negative images about radicalization of Muslim youth came up. Many youths felt that this discrimination was an important source of division to cohesion within their community, while they themselves did not see divisions based on ethnic backgrounds.
Finally, while adults from Dutch backgrounds indicated that they felt less ‘in place’
115
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 129 in the neighbourhood, this was generally not the case to same extent for young people with Dutch backgrounds. As most of their peers spoke the same language (Dutch) they felt less excluded from conversations. At most of the schools the young people attended it was not even allowed for the young people to speak other languages than Dutch, even during the breaks. Moreover, diversity was a larger part of youths’ everyday lives than is the case with adults: they grew up in a diverse neighbourhood and interact on a daily basis with non-western peers at school or at out-of-school activities.
5.5 Discussion
This paper has examined the different ways in which adults and young people in highly diverse Feijenoord in Rotterdam engage with the neighbourhoods diversity and how this influences their perceptions of local diversity. The study discussed how the adults and young people have different uses of neighbourhood spaces, which relate to whom they encounter and befriend and how they perceive the neighbourhoods diversity. When adults have repetitive contact with diverse others it is in shared spaces with neighbours nearby the house and, particularly for those with a low SEP, also in semi-public spaces such as community centres. These semi-public spaces act as parochial realms in which diverse local weak ties develop. But, these exchanges rarely lead to friendships across differences. Strong ties of family and friends appear relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, religion and class. Relationships between adults across these differences mostly exist between neighbours and other local acquaintances. When discussing positive and negative experiences with diversity in the neighbourhood, adults mostly talked about ethno-cultural diversity, such as the culturally rich variety of shops in Feijenoord, that comes with the ethno-culturally diverse population and was mostly appreciated, as well as minority ethnic groups not speaking the Dutch language in public and semi-public local spaces, which was experienced as problematic by adults with diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
In contrast, the young people in this research spend much more time in public spaces such as the streets and plaza’s than adults, where they meet and actually develop friendships with neighbourhood children with diverse social
116
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 130 backgrounds. By meeting diverse others on a regular basis, public spaces become parochial realms for young people (Wessendorf 2014). Like with adults, semi- public places such as community centres, schools and sports clubs also appeared important places for meeting diverse others. Yet, young people also used these spaces for longer periods of time and more often than adults, had developed friendships across differences in these spaces, such as their schools and youth clubs, as well. When discussing (positive and negative) experiences with the neighbourhoods diversity with young people, ethnicity was not perceived as the main social divider in the area. Instead, young people distinguished groups based on school, subneighbourhood or subculture. They talked about how they value strong local support networks and dislike criminality and safety issues in the area, yet did not explicitly connect these issues to ethno-cultural groups. Different from adults, young people did not identify language barriers to interact with peers from other ethnic backgrounds, which is no surprise as they all learnt Dutch in school. In short, young people did not use concepts such as multiculturalism like adults, but instead saw diversity as ordinary and practical part of their everyday lived experience (see also Cope and Kalantzis 1998; Harris 2016; Wessendorf 2014).
The differences between the interviewed adults and young people can be understood using Buonfino and Mulgan’s (2009) notion of‘learned grammar of sociability’, which entails that similar to learning a language, civility towards people who are different is learned through everyday encounters and interactions in day-to-day social situations. The young people we interviewed grow up in a neighbourhood where diversity is a normal part of their lives. They have encountered differences since they have been young: in their micro-neighbourhood, youth clubs and schools. In contrast, the interviewed adults have also lived in a context that was much less diverse (in Feijenoord or elsewhere). Furthermore, using Buonfino and Mulgan’s analogy with language more literally, it is more difficult to learn a new language at a higher age. The fact that the interviewed adults in Feijenoord did not grow up in a diverse context and spend less time in diverse places in their neighbourhood, might explain why they are less used to the ‘language’ of the neighbourhood and have less familiarity with the ‘grammars of sociability’. The narratives among long-term residents of nostalgia for Feijenoord’s ethnically more homogenous past (see also Harris 2009; Jones 2014; Watson and Wells 2005)
117
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 131 support this.
A key question that this study raises however is whether the differences between adults and young people can be explained by a generational or an age effect. In case of a generational effect, we expect the young people to remain having more nuanced perceptions of diversity even when they become adults, because of the circumstances of the time they grew up in. In case of an age effect, the perceptions of diversity of the young people might become similar to those of the adults in our study over time. Since today’s young generations are the first ones to experience the combination of increased diversity and a changing norms regarding multicultural values, we do not know whether the effect will vanish when this generation grows up. Only a longitudinal study can determine whether the effect remains when these younger generations grow older and continues with newer cohorts. However, several findings of this study point towards a generational effect. First, living in a highly diverse context provides young people with more intercultural friendships and better intercultural competences than adults in these neighbourhoods, which can benefit young people in the rest of their social and working lives. There is little reason to expect a massive reversal in the positive norm environment (Harris 2009; Wise 2010), and trends in immigration rates are unlikely to change drastically. Second, among each other the generation of young people will not have to deal with the language deficiencies that some of their parents experience and adults perceived as a main obstacles for the development of strong ties across ethno-cultural differences. Finally, the social networks of young people are more open and dynamic than those of adults, for whom it might be more difficult to changes their social contacts (Heringa 2016). This could result in the continuation of more diverse social networks among today’s young people. Yet, as educational institutions and the labour market in the Netherlands are often more segregated in terms of ethnicity and income than neighbourhoods, moving into adulthood could also make it more difficult for the young people to maintain their diverse social networks. Longitudinal studies on the everyday practices with and perceptions of diversity of young people in diverse contexts can shed more light on the extent to which growing up in diverse neighbourhoods can bridge social divides on the long-term.
118
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 132 Notes
1 It should be noted that some groups of adults might be more restricted in their spatial movements and localness of their social networks than youths. One can think of elderly people (which are excluded from this research); women with young children or with a non-western background (Heringa et al., 2016; Allan and Phillipson, 2008; Wissink and Hazelzet, 2012). However, our interviews show that youths – at least the ones living in deprived urban areas – are also one of these groups which are highly neighbourhood based for their activities and (physical) social contacts (see also Visser, 2014). 2 The term socioeconomic position (SEP) refers to the position occupied in a social hierarchy by an individual or family. Socio-economic position should be considered broadly synonymous with the US term socio-economic status (SES) and is closely related to notions of social class. 3 As Graham Allan (1996, p. 85) has commented, there is a lack of firmly agreed and socially acknowledged criteria for what makes a person a friend. This might differ depending on factors like age, gender, ethnic background and setting. In our study, the distinction between ‘friend’ and ‘acquaintance’ was defined by the respondent themselves. 4 Young people’s virtual social networks - e.g. through Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat - extended beyond the neighbourhood and sometimes also included transnational ties. Discussing these, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. 5 The definition of the term ‘neighbour’ differed slightly between the youths and the adults. Whereas adults primarily talk about their next door neighbours, the young people often also refer to children that live one or two blocks from their own home and whom they meet at the nearby park or square as neighbourhood children. In other words, whereas adults were more likely to perceive fellow residents in terms of fixed social groups, youths seemed to have a more fluid and dynamic understanding of their social residential environment.
References
Abascal, M. and D. Baldassarri (2015), Love thy neighbour? Ethnoracial diversity and trust re- examined. American Journal of Sociology, 121 (3), pp. 722-782. Alba, R. (1990), Ethnic identity: The transformation of white America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Allan, G.A. (1996), Kinship and friendship in modern Britain. World Bank Publications. Allan, G. and C. Phillipson (2008), Community studies today: Urban perspectives. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (2), pp. 163–173. Allport, G.W. (1958), The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city. Environment and Planning A, 34 (6), pp. 959- 980. Atkinson, R. and Kintrea, K. (2000). Owner occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Policy and Politics, 28 (1), pp. 93-108. Berg, M.L. and N. Sigona (2013), Ethnography, diversity and urban space. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 20 (4), pp. 347-360.
119
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 133 Blokland, T. (2003), Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press. Buonfino, A. and G. Mulgan (2009),Civility lost and found. London: Young Foundation. Camina, M.M. and M.J. Wood (2009), Parallel lives: towards a greater understanding of what mixed communities can offer.Urban Studies, 46 (2), pp. 459-480. Cope, B. and M. Kalantzis (1998), Multicultural education: Transforming the mainstream, In: S. May (ed.), Critical multiculturalism. Rethinking multicultural and anti-racist education. London: Falmer Press, pp. 245-274. Ford, R. (2012), Europe’s young cosmopolitans: Explaining generational differences in immigration attitudes. Manchester: University of Manchester Institute for Social Change [working paper]. Fortier, A.M. (2007), Too close for comfort: Loving thy neighbour and the management of multicultural intimacies. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25 (1), pp. 104-119. Gesthuizen, M., T. van der Meer and P. Scheepers (2009), Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: Tests of Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32 (2), pp. 121-142. Harris, A. (2009), Shifting the boundaries of cultural spaces: Young people and everyday multiculturalism. Social Identities, 15 (2), pp. 187-205. Harris, A. (2016), Youth socialities in Australia’s multiculture. Urban studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098016680310 [published online before printing]. Heringa, A.M. (2016), Pathways in diversity: Inter-ethnic contacts and experiences and the role of the neighbourhood from a situational, activity-based approach. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Hooghe, M., T. Reeskens, D. Stolle and A. Trappers (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe: A cross-national multilevel study. Comparative Political Studies, 42 (2), pp. 198-223. Horton, J., P. Christensen, P. Kraftl and S. Hadfield-Hill (2014), ‘Walking… just walking’: How children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social and Cultural Geography, 15 (1), pp. 94-115. Iqbal, H., S. Neal and C. Vincent (2016), Children’s friendships in super diverse localities: Encounters with social and ethnic differences.Childhood, DOI: 10.1177/0907568216633741 [published online before printing]. Jones, H. (2014), Uncomfortable feelings: How local belonging works on local policy makers, In: H. Jones and E. Jackson (ed.), Stories of cosmopolitan belonging: Emotion and location. London: Routledge/Earthscan, pp. 196-202. Karsten, L. (2005), It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies, 3 (3), pp. 275-290. Lancee, B. and J. Dronkers (2008), Etnische diversiteit, sociaal vertrouwen in de buurt en contact van allochtonen en autochtonen met de buren [Ethnic diversity, social trust in the neighbourhood and contact of migrants and natives with neighbours]. Migrantenstudies, 24 (4), pp. 224-249. Lobo, M. (2010), Interethnic understanding and belonging in suburban Melbourne. Urban Policy and Research, 28 (1), pp. 85-99. Lofland, L. (1998),The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lofland, L. (1989), Social life in the public realm: A review. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
120
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 134 17 (4), pp. 453–482. Mannheim, K. (1952), The Problem of generations. In: P. Kecskemeti (ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge: Collected works. Volume 5. New York: Routledge, pp. 276-322. Massey, D.B. (2005), For space. London: Sage. Matthews, H. and M. Limb (1999), Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect. Progress in Human Geography, 23 (1), pp. 61-90. Matthews, H. (2003), The street as a liminal space. In: P. Christensen and M. O’Brien (ed.), Children in the city: Home, neighborhood and community. London: Routledge, pp. 101-117. Nava, M. (2007), Visceral cosmopolitanism: Gender, culture and the normalisation of difference. Oxford/New York: Berg. Nayak, A. (2003), Race, place and globalization: Youth cultures in a changing world. Vancouver: Bloomsbury Publishing. Neal, S. and C. Vincent (2013), Multiculture, middle class competencies and friendship practices in super-diverse geographies. Social and Cultural Geography, 14 (8), pp. 909-929. Neal, S., C. Vincent and H. Iqbal (2016), Extended encounters in primary school worlds: Shared social resource, connective spaces and sustained conviviality in socially and ethnically complex urban geographies. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 464-480. Noble, G. (2009), Everyday cosmopolitanism and the labour of intercultural community. In: A. Wise and S. Velayutham (ed.), Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 46- 65. Noble, G. (2011), ‘Bumping into alterity’: Transacting cultural complexities, Continuum, 25 (6), pp. 827-840. Peterson, M. (2016), Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: How important are encounters in semi-public spaces? Social and Cultural Geography, pp. 1-19. DOI:10.1080/14649365.2016. 1210667 [published online before printing]. Putnam, R.D. (2007), E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), pp. 137–74. Reitz, J. and S. Sommerville (2004), Institutional change and emerging cohorts of the ‘new’ immigrant second generation: Implications for the integration of racial minorities in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 5 (3), pp. 1–48. Stolle, D. and A. Harell (2013), Social capital and ethno-racial diversity: Learning to trust in an immigrant society. Political Studies, 61 (1), pp. 42-66. Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner (1979), An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W. G. Austin, and S. Worchel (ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-37. Tasan-kok, T., R. van Kempen, M. Raco and G. Bolt (2013), Towards hyper-diversified European cities. A critical literature review. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Valentine, G. (2008), Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress In Human Geography, 32, pp. 321–335. Valentine, G. (2013), Living with difference: Proximity and encounter in urban life. Geography, 98 (1), pp. 4–9. Valentine, G. and J. Sadgrove (2012), Lived difference: the transmission of positive and negative
121
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 135 attitudes towards others. Environment and Planning A, 44 (9), pp. 2049–2067. Vertovec, S. (2007), Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024- 1054. Vertovec, S. and S. Wessendorf (2010), The Multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. Abingdon: Routledge. Vincent, C., S. Neal and H. Iqbal, (2016), Encounters with diversity: Children’s friendships and parental responses. Urban Studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098016634610 [published online before printing]. Visser, K. (2014), Navigating the neighbourhood: How youths deal with displacement and life in a deprived neighbourhood. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Watson, V. (2006), Deep difference: Diversity, planning and ethics.Planning Theory, 5 (1), pp. 31–50. Watson, S. and K. Wells (2005), Spaces of nostalgia: the hollowing out of a London market. Social and Cultural Geography, 6, pp. 17–30. Watt, P. (2006), Respectability, roughness and ‘race’: Neighbourhood place images and the making of working‐class social distinctions in London. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (4), pp. 776-797. Wessendorf, S. (2014), Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wessendorf, S. (2016), Settling in a super-diverse context: Recent migrants’ experiences of conviviality. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 449-463. Wimmer, A. (2004), Does ethnicity matter? Everyday group formation in three Swiss immigrant neighbourhoods. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27 (1), pp. 1-36. Wise, A. (2005), Hope and belonging in a multicultural suburb. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 26 (1-2), pp. 171-186. Wise, A. (2010), Sensuous multiculturalism: Emotional landscapes of inter-ethnic living in Australian suburbia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 96 (6), pp. 917-937. Wise, A. and G. Noble (2016), Conviviality: An orientation. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 423-431. Wissink, B. and A. Hazelzet (2012), Social networks in “neighbourhood Tokyo”. Urban Studies, 49 (7), pp. 1527–1548.
122
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 136 DO BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER IN HIGHLY DIVERSE CONTEXTS? COMPOSITION AND SPATIALITY OF 6 WEAK TIES IN A ROTTERDAM NEIGHBOURHOOD
Tersteeg, A.K., P. Hooimeijer and G.S. Bolt This chapter is currently under review at an international journal
Abstract
Cities have always been places of diversity. Yet, according to the recent literature on super-diversity (e.g. Vertovec 2007) and hyper-diversity (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013) cities are becoming diverse in ever more complex ways, which is often considered another threat to social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods. In contrast, this paper focusses on the opportunities for contacts across differences in highly diverse contexts by analysing the composition and spatiality of locality- based weak ties in the district of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. The results show that shared spaces with neighbours and local institutions such as community centres and schools are key facilitators of diverse locality-based networks by stimulating repeated and prolonged encounters. Within these shared spaces, weak ties develop along a wide variety of dimensions. People develop local relations based on all sorts of commonalities and needs, that connect to life style (e.g. enjoying knitting), life course (e.g. having children), religion, or simply experiencing an emergency (e.g. sudden illness of a neighbour). Such shared interests or needs can bridge ethnic divides by providing care and support to neighbours and acquaintances. Class divides are harder to bridge as residents with a higher socio-economic position live more segregated in owner-occupied estates and use local centres and schools less.
123
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 137 6.1 Introduction
Cities have always been places of diversity. Yet, according to the recent literature on super-diversity (e.g. Vertovec 2007) and hyper-diversity (Tasan-Kok et al. 2013) cities are becoming diverse in ever more complex ways. Scholars in this field have argued that a broadening of migration motives and flows as well as an increasingly mobile population within and beyond cities is leading to an increasingly multi-layered urban population in terms of their demography, life styles and activity patterns. The increasingly complex diversity is thought to challenge social cohesion and stability in cities. Yet, much remains unclear about the social implications of the diversification of cities. The focus of this paper is on the neighbourhoods that are becoming most diverse. The paper examines how living amidst such complex diversity shapes the composition and spatiality of locality-based personal networks of residents.
In public and political debates in the Netherlands, particularly in the city of Rotterdam where this study was situated, highly diverse neighbourhoods are often understood to lack social cohesion. A dominant idea is that the diversity of ethnicities and socioeconomic classes in these neighbourhoods make residents live parallel lives. It is rooted in studies, the most influential one of Putnam (2007), that find that living in a diverse neighbourhood does not lead to diverse personal networks, but to social withdrawal and mistrust as people have few others they can identify and feel familiar with (Gesthuizen et al. 2008; Lancee and Dronkers 2008). The studies demonstrate the ‘homophily principle’, the tendency of people to bond with people whom they feel are relatively alike (Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954; Laumann, 1973). Particularly similarities in socioeconomic status and ethnicity are found to strongly structure people’s local personal networks in diverse neighbourhoods (e.g. van Eijk 2010; McPherson et al. 2001; Pinkster and Völker 2009). There are three directions in which this paper seeks to extend this literature.
First, the literature has focussed on socioeconomic status and ethnicity when examining social networks in diverse contexts, while there are also other dimensions that structure locality-based social relations in these contexts, such as gender, life course, and norms about reciprocity. Studies in the fields of super-
124
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 138 diversity and hyper-diversity have recently started to look at a broader set of social dimensions when examining social interaction in diverse contexts (Askins 2015; Hall 2015; Peterson 2016; Wessendorf 2014, 2016; Wise & Velayutham 2014; Ye 2016). An example is the growing literature about youth’s friendship practices in highly diverse neighbourhoods (see e.g. Harris 2014, 2016; Hollingworth & Mansaray 2012; Iqbal et al. 2016; Neal et al. 2016; Vincent et al. 2016; Visser 2014). This study will focus on multiple dimensions of difference in locality-based personal networks of adult residents in diverse neighbourhoods.
Second, the existing literature has mostly focussed on strong ties of family and friends when exploring the impact of a diverse residential context on locality- based networks, while social relations across differences are more likely to occur in weak ties between neighbours and other acquaintances. Granovetter (1973, p. 1364) identified the crucial role of weak ties by stating:‘Weak ties …are certainly not automatically bridges. What is important, rather, is that all bridges are weak ties’. More current research (Doff 2010) has stressed the role of the neighbourhood in the development of weak ties. This paper will focus on weak ties of neighbours and other local acquaintances to better understand social relations in diverse contexts.
Third, much remains unclear about the spatiality of locality-based networks within diverse neighbourhoods. Many quantitative studies use a standardised definition of the neighbourhood, mostly a four or five digit postal code, which gives information about the localness of personal networks, but not about where locality-based personal networks in highly diverse contexts emerge. Several qualitative studies have examined this question, but mostly provide insight in the spatial conditions of social contact in specific spaces that were selected by the researcher, such as shared courtyard with nearby neighbours, a community centre or a school. Recent, insightful examples are the comparative study of a library and a community centre by Peterson (2016) which demonstrates how the spaces encourage social cohesion in different ways and a study of Neal et al. (2016) which discusses how primary schools facilitate social networks of children and their parents. This paper seeks to more generally identify the neighbourhood spaces that are most important for the development of locality-based personal networks of weak ties. To explore how living amidst complex diversity shapes the composition and spatiality of locality-based networks of weak ties the paper
125
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 139 draws on interviews with 53 residents in one of the most diverse areas of the Netherlands: Feijenoord in the city of Rotterdam. The following research questions were formulated to guide the study:
1. How diverse are locality-based personal networks of weak ties of residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods? To what extent do the ties develop around other dimensions than ethnicity and socioeconomic status? 2. In which neighbourhood spaces do diverse locality-based personal networks of weak ties emerge and how do these spaces facilitate these networks?
The next section will provide a theoretical background for studying these questions. It will provide a theoretical background to which, why, how and where locality-based personal networks emerge in highly diverse contexts. Hereafter, the research methodology and research area of Feijenoord are introduced. The third section presents the findings. The paper concludes by discussing the similarities and differences between neighbourhood spaces when it comes to how they encourage locality-based networks and the implications for research and policies and practices aimed at encouraging social cohesion in diverse neighbourhoods.
6.2 Theoretical background
6.2.1 Locality-based personal networks: how and why?
How do locality-based personal networks emerge? A first prerequisite for the development of bonds between local residents is meeting opportunities, as there is no ‘mating’ without ‘meeting’ (Verbrugge, 1977). The area where people live is an important meeting setting, because this is where people spend relatively much time. Here, people share the boundaries of their home with neighbours, make use of facilities and services, conduct leisure activities or simply cross the neighbourhood on a day-to-day basis on their way to work. It is in these shared spaces that people encounter other residents. Interactions as such do not necessarily create ties. A relevant distinction in the literature is between
126
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 140 fleeting interactions and interactions that lead to enduring contact. The former are short verbal or non-verbal exchanges that occur between strangers and local acquaintances as a result of accidental proximity (e.g. Mayblin et al. 2016). Fleeting encounters contribute to a sense of familiarity with fellow residents and a feeling of belonging to the neighbourhood (Peterson 2016), but do generally not start off relations. This paper focusses on neighbourhood settings that encourage actual relations. Such settings allow for repeated, lengthy contact between local people, for instance: organised activities with neighbours, or local institutions such as a local school, community centre or sports club. Local institutions are known to be particularly important meeting places in neighbourhoods (Amin 2002; Peterson 2016). The more local institutions in a neighbourhood, the greater the chance that people will meet and bond (Völker et al. 2007).
Meeting spaces in diverse neighbourhoods do however not guarantee that people with different backgrounds meet. People do not spend equal amounts of time in the neighbourhood. Long-term residents have had more opportunities to connect with people in their neighbourhood than short-term residents (Völker et al. 2007). Furthermore, residents with a low socioeconomic status, a minority ethnic background and children, and the elderly spend more time in the spaces of their neighbourhood than other groups and have more local social networks (Van Kempen & Wissink 2014). The importance of the neighbourhood for activities and social contact can change over a person’s life course. For example, people might become more dependent of the neighbourhood when they have young children or when they become less mobile at a high age. Another factor that can discourage encounters is that people use the spaces in their neighbourhood, including local institutions, selectively (e.g. Pinkster 2014; Savage et al. 2010). Hence, ‘social contexts like meeting places and institutional arrangements delimit ‘the pool’ from which people can choose their friends, partner and acquaintances’ (Mollenhorst et al. 2008, p. 61). Similarities in lifestyle features are particularly important for the facilitation of interpersonal contact (Völker et al. 2007). Therefore, meeting pools in diverse neighbourhoods can be rather homogeneous, encouraging homogeneous rather than diverse local networks.
Within these given pools, how do neighbourhood relationships start off? People generally start relations because they expect to gain something from it. This
127
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 141 means that a person will be more interested in developing a relationship if the other person has something to offer, for instance financial resources, advice, care or support. The expected value of future help explains why people start a relationship and invest in other people (Völker et al. 2007). People tend to start relations with people who have more resources than themselves on a specific topic. These resources can differ according to the type of relation. Strong ties with family and friends often revolve around affectivity and involve intangible forms of support such as companionship, and emotional support (Van Eijk 2012; Wellman, 1992). Instead, weak ties of neighbours and other local acquaintances often revolve around affinity, based on the shared membership of a community such as a local sports club or an imagined community, for instance neighbours in a specific housing block (Blokland 2003; Van Eijk 2012). Weak locality-based ties often provide minor goods and services, such as care for neighbours’ children in case of illness (Wellman, 1992). They further provide residents with information about and give people a sense of belonging to their residential environment (Peterson 2016). Similarity in terms of socioeconomic position, ethnicity, life course and lifestyle is more important for affective relations than for affinitive ones because ‘similarity… lowers the costs of transactions and enhances mutual understanding and trust’ (Allan 2008; Van Eijk 2012, Mollenhorst et al. 2008, p. 60). People are more selective when it comes to choosing close friends than when it comes to choosing acquaintances. Therefore, it is plausible that neighbourhood- based strong ties are often less diverse than local weak ties. When studying the impact of living in diverse contexts on the composition of local social networks, it is thus important to be clear about the type of relations under study. The common perception in public and political debates that people in diverse neighbourhoods live parallel lives might to some extent be due to the fact that most studies on social networks focus on the strong ties of families and friends. This study will re-examine this common perception by focussing on the development of diverse weak ties.
6.2.2 The spatiality of locality-based personal networks
Within the literature, two types of neighbourhood spaces were found to encourage locality-based relations across differences in diverse contexts: spaces around the
128
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 142 house where nearby neighbours meet, including corridors, hallways, sidewalks and gardens; and semi-public and public institutions such as schools, community centres and libraries. Both types of space encourage repeated and prolonged interactions between local residents (Amin 2012; Valentine 2013), but differ in two important ways. First, most people cannot select their neighbours, but have more choice when it comes to whom they meet in local institutions. Second, neighbours are more dependent on one another than visitors of local institutions.
Sharing spaces with neighbours The spatial setting of neighbouring is characterised by the fact that neighbours are generally not chosen and depend on each other when it comes to the use of shared spaces around the house, such as gardens, corridors and parking lots. Furthermore, living in close spatial proximity, neighbours depend on each other for their privacy within the private spaces of their homes (Van Eijk 2011). The unchosen proximity of neighbours makes that people develop and negotiate norms concerning ‘proper’ behaviour of nearby neighbours. Common norms are: avoiding disturbance (e.g. noise and littering) and providing support when needed (Van Eijk 2011; 2012). It is because ‘people in a local setting have to share goods and …have to make arrangements concerning the use of goods, for example, the street they live in, parking lots, trash cans, playgrounds, [that] they establish contacts with each other and …social networks and community emerges’ (Völker et al. 2007, pp. 102-103). The more neighbours depend on each other, the more they will meet. For example, people are more dependent on their neighbours in apartment buildings with shared corridors, and a common bicycle shed and waste management system, than when they live in detached housing. Likewise, neighbours are more interdependent in areas where facilities and amenities are absent or inaccessible (Völker & Flap 2007). People are more likely to join meetings and activities with neighbours when many neighbours do so, in fear of missing out (Völker et al. 2007). A precondition for the development of a relation between nearby neighbours is that residents respect each other’s norms. The diversity of lifestyles, cultures and daily schedules of residents and related diversity of uses of shared spaces in highly diverse neighbourhoods might discourage and complicate this. It is important to note that people with a high socioeconomic status, have more choice when it comes to their residential environment, than those with a
129
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 143 lower SES. In the Netherlands, and particularly also in our case study area, people with a high SES live in more homogeneous parts of the neighbourhood when it comes to the ethnicity and SES of residents, than people with a medium high or low SES.
Sharing space in local institutions and outdoor public areas Meeting other people is often a by-product of a visit to a local institution. For many people, developing locality-based contacts is not the primary motive when they bring their children to school, visit a library, or join a sports club or a painting course. It is the repeated sharing of these neighbourhood spaces for the purpose of such activities that allow people to get to know each other (Peterson 2016). Visitors of these spaces often come here for the same purpose, for instance, to pick up a child from school, to exercise or to learn how to paint. This contributes to the perception that others are alike. Some local institutions offer space for different groups of visitors, for instance community centres that host activities for different ethnic or age groups. Disagreements between groups can discourage the formation of intergroup relations but can strengthen in-group relations, as Peterson (2016) found in her study of one of the community centres in this study’s research area. Still, it is easier to avoid certain people in local institutions than to avoid nearby neighbours. Again, people with a higher SES have more options and can be more selective when it comes to the local institutions they visit. A prominent example is the choice of middle class parents in diverse neighbourhoods to bring their children to white, more prestigious schools outside of the neighbourhood instead of bringing them to local schools.
Besides shared spaces with nearby neighbours and within local institutions, the literature recognises public areas, such as squares, parks and shopping streets as important for interaction between local people, particularly between people with different backgrounds. However, these interactions often prove to be brief, and rarely lead to new local relations. This is because many public spaces are used as passage ways (Madanipour 1999). An exception in the literature are playgrounds, which can sometimes facilitate relations between parents of young children with different backgrounds (Weck & Hanhörster 2015) and relations between dogwalkers in public spaces such as parks (Wood et al. 2007). Both settings allow for extended and repeated interactions between people who are mutually aware of
130
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 144 that they both have children or a dog.
6.3 Research context and approach
To explore how living in a highly diverse neighbourhood shapes the composition, meaning and spatiality of locality-based personal networks of adult residents, interviews were held with adult residents in the highly diverse district of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. Feijenoord is located on the South bank of the river Meuse, traditionally a relatively poor part of Rotterdam. The area houses approximately 73.000 people and is one of the most diverse areas of the Netherlands when it comes to the ages, educational and economic backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, migration histories and household types of residents. The relatively affordable housing stock of Feijenoord attracts many disadvantaged newcomers to the area. A large part of the population is low-skilled, unemployed, and has lower than average household incomes. In 2014, the largest ethnic groups were Dutch (34%), Turkish (19%), Surinamese (11%), Moroccan (10%) and Dutch Antillean or Aruban (4%). Over the last decennium, there has been a concerted effort by Rotterdam municipality to attract middle and high income households to the area through various urban regeneration and social mixing programs. Particularly in the areas closest to the city centre, there are now more residents with a middle and high socioeconomic status and gentrification processes can be observed. In the east and northwest of the area, there are small concentrations of long-term residents, Dutch pensioners from the working-class.
Interviewees were recruited by means of purposeful sampling with the goal to generate a diverse sample in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, household type, socioeconomic status and involvement in neighbourhood organisations. Interviewees were approached in the streets, at their homes, at community centres, and through a snowballing method. We spoke with 53 adult residents, 31 women and 22 men, aged 18 to 69. The interviewees had 17 different ethnic backgrounds. Most identify their ethnicity as Dutch, Surinamese, Turkish, Pakistani or Moroccan (Dutch). The vast majority of interviewees had lived in the area for more than five years.
131
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 145 The interviews captured the geography, strength, composition and function of personal networks of residents including family, friends, neighbours, other local acquaintances and colleagues; experiences with nearby neighbours and other local acquaintances; daily activity patterns; the use and non-use of neighbourhood spaces and perceptions of other users. The interviews were transcribed and then coded in NVivo. Pseudonyms were ascribed to ensure the interviewees’ confidentiality.
6.4 Locality-based weak ties in Feijenoord
People’s personal networks exist of all sorts of relations, which started off within or outside of their neighbourhood, and can be weak or strong. Interviewees were first asked to describe their strong ties, referred to as the people they feel most close to, in terms of their place of residence, age, education, ethnicity, gender, household income, household type, and occupation. They were asked to do the same for locality-based ties, referred to as people whom they know from living in the neighbourhood. In order to determine whether these were weak ties, interviewees were asked to describe their bond with these people.
In line with the literature, the neighbourhood does not appear to be equally important for the development of personal networks for all interviewees. For those with a low socioeconomic status1 (SES), a minority ethnic background and for elderly2 people, the neighbourhood appeared to be more important for the maintenance of strong ties than for other interviewed residents. They had close family and friends living in the same neighbourhood or in surrounding neighbourhoods more often, which they valued more and whom they met more often. Both the local and non-local networks of close family and friends were generally homogenous in terms of ethnicity, religion and SES: few interviewees had family relations and friendships with another ethno-cultural or religious background or SES.
The locality-based weak ties that interviewees talked about included nearby neighbours and other local acquaintances. They were described as people who interviewees regularly meet in the neighbourhood but do not consider friends.
132
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 146 Locality-based weak ties appeared to be more common than local strong ties. All interviewees had one or more acquaintances in the neighbourhood. The weak ties provide people with practical support that family and friends sometimes cannot provide. Differently form the strong ties, personal networks of neighbours and other local acquaintances were generally diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion as well as, age, gender and household type. Michael (39, male, German, private rent) describes the different compositions of his local network of friends and acquaintances as follows:
I would describe my group of friends in the neighbourhood as ‘free spirits’, …fairly alternative, left-wing people, highly educated, with an idealistic outlook on life. Perhaps (they are not) not the mainstream resident of this area… But at the same time I also go to my Turkish baker, I drink coffee with my Moroccan neighbour… I organise activities for young people… who I will then meet in the streets, where we talk about their problems… everyday issues... I will come into contact with their parents… So these contacts are very diverse… Turkish mothers and fathers, Moroccan parents.
Like with strong ties, locality-based weak ties were generally not diverse when it comes to the socioeconomic status of residents. An explanation may be that interviewees with a relatively high SES and those with a relatively low SES rarely appear to be in settings in which they can get to know one another. The interviews indicate that the high SES persons spend less time in the neighbourhood. The two groups are rarely next-door neighbours as housing in Feijenoord is generally not mixed at the block-level in terms of tenure type and the SES of residents. Furthermore, interviewees with a high SES rarely make use of community centres, where many low SES interviewees conduct social and leisure activities and when having children bring them to school in a neighbouring municipality.
6.5 The spatiality of locality-based personal networks
A precondition for the emergence of social ties across differences is that people meet diverse others repeatedly and that these encounters are long enough
133
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 147 for people to become familiar with one another (Amin 2012). The interviews identified two types of neighbourhood spaces in which weak ties had developed and are maintained: shared spaces with nearby neighbours and shared spaces of local institutions, most prominently community centres and schools. The spaces shape neighbourhood relations. This section will examine where the observed diverse locality-based ties between people with a different ethno-cultural and religious background, age, gender and household type emerge and how the spaces facilitate the networks. It will discuss the ways in which locality-based social ties can develop; the purpose that diverse locality-based ties fulfil; factors that hinder the formation of diverse locality-based ties; and the specific nature of neighbour relations across differences. The section will finish with a schematic overview of the ways in which different neighbourhood spaces shape social relations across differences.
6.5.1 Sharing spaces with neighbours
There are two ways in which weak ties between nearby neighbours often started off. First, interviewees got to know neighbours and other local acquaintances through repeated chance encounters. Interviewees met nearby neighbours when going in and out of their house in shared corridors, court yards and gardens and in the streets. For example, Linda (68, female, Hindustani Dutch, medium SES) described the start of a good relation with her Dutch, much younger downstairs male neighbour as follows:
You know, the first day they came here, to clean the place… I just came home… and I said: ‘Hello neighbour’, I always greet people you know. We met and his parents explained that he was planning to open an ice cream shop. I said, ‘that’s great, I live upstairs, so I’ll come by often for ice cream then’. I asked if they fancied a cup of coffee. …I made coffee for them and brought it down stairs, they were very pleased. Since then we have good contact. They give me flowers for my birthday. I give them food whenever I’ve cooked something nice, also for mum and dad. …After I fell (and broke my hip) he carried my shopping bags up the stairs.
Second, interviewees mention that a small or major crisis was the initiator of
134
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 148 their bond with certain neighbours. Examples are a burglary or fire at a home, or the (sudden) illness, birth or death of a neighbour. Cheng (30, male, Chinese Antillean Dutch, medium SES) and several neighbours have each other’s phone numbers and keep an eye out. He argues that:
It actually started in response to a problem. There had been several incidents in the neighbourhood, to which we responded by organising ourselves. We had to change, develop a relationship. A burglary. After that we all became more alert: ‘If you watch me, I’ll watch you’. Interviewer: So is that how you started to talk? Yes we started to talk. That is how our conversations started.
Hilda’s (64, female, Dutch, Low SES) bond with her next-door neighbours for twenty years started off in a similar way:
We had a fire in the attic once, they (neighbours) took the children in immediately… They came to help immediately you know. Also, when we (my son) Mike had a head-wound because of a bike accident, it was a long time ago, they rushed him to hospital. I wasn’t at home at the time. And we had only lived here shortly… We hardly knew them, but as early as then they helped us.
For neighbours, an important purpose of local social networks appeared to be providing forms of care and support, which complement those of (local) family members and friends. Most interviewees had given support to, and received support from, nearby neighbours regularly. The forms of support that interviewees mention are rather diverse and depend on individual needs. Common forms of mutual support between neighbours include: running errands or carrying errands up the stairs; gardening and doing odd jobs for neighbours (e.g. repairing electronic devices, painting the house); cooking and sharing food with neighbours (e.g. in time of illness or loneliness); lending things to neighbours (e.g. a bicycle or phone); informational or advisory support (e.g. helping with paper work, referring neighbours to social services); babysitting the children of neighbours; caring for children of neighbours in case of personal or family problems; keeping neighbours company; safeguarding safety by keeping an eye out for neighbours
135
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 149 (on their house in case of absence, illness or loneliness); and giving support in case of emergencies (e.g. fire, burglary, illness). The types of care and support between neighbours relate to the extent to which neighbours are trusted. Having a spare key to the house and allowing neighbours to babysit their children appears to be an important indicator of mutual trust between neighbours. When asked if she thinks that she can trust her neighbours, Aida (36, female, Moroccan Dutch, medium SES) says:
…my neighbours? Absolutely. My neighbour opposite me and my Dutch neighbours downstairs for sure. Actually (I trust) all of them, but in different ways” Interviewer: What are the differences? Aida: My downstairs neighbour I have given the key to my mailbox in the summer holidays. My neighbour opposite her, we visit each other at home. My daughter, she is nine. I have allowed her to go home (from school) on her own. I come home half an hour after her. This neighbour opens the door for her, comes inside with her and gives her something to eat and drink, and then she leaves. That trust is there. Or my daughter stays with her. Surely a close bond.
When interviewees trust neighbours, they often say this is because they know them well or they see them often. Particular commonalities between individual features and daily practices of neighbours, such as having children, similar parenting strategies, greeting and showing interest in neighbours, and taking good care of the dwelling were found to foster trust in neighbours. Different from what the literature suggests, such commonalities often transcend ethnic and religious lines.
A key feature of contact between nearby neighbours compared with contact with local residents further away from home is that interviewees found the former more difficult to avoid. If you do not like fellow users of a local park or within an organised activity, you have a possibility to leave the activity-space. However, shared boundaries to private spaces of the home and the day-to-day sharing of spaces around the house make it more difficult to avoid contact with nearby neighbours. Indeed, ‘…neighbouring means balancing proximity and privacy and an important norm of good neighbouring is that people keep their distance and
136
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 150 respect each other’s privacy’ (Van Eijk 2012, p. 3010). Especially in a context of residents with diverse cultures, daily routines, household types and lifestyles, a proper balance between proximity and privacy appears a precondition for the development of positive relations with neighbours. Interviewees, referred to this balance in terms of ‘being a considerate neighbour’. In sum, this entailed greeting, showing interest in neighbours in shared spaces around the house and supporting neighbours, but not bothering neighbours in the privacy of their homes too much, for instance by being too loud. As Hilda (64, female, Dutch, low SES) for instance puts it: “you bump into one another in the streets… you don’t go around knocking on people’s door”. Vera (41, female, Dutch, high SES) lives with her husband and three children and is close with several nearby families with children, who she describes as:
…very nice people, just… whom you can approach, visit anytime, for a chat, but also for advice, or to borrow something, but who also know well how to respect each other’s privacy. For instance, we (neighbours) teach our children not to walk in the garden of neighbours when the gate is closed, for instance when we have dinner in the garden in the summer. That way we can give the children the freedom to, ‘you can just walk in’, but they also know when it is not the right moment.
Although Vera’s neighbours seemed to agree on a proper balance between proximity and privacy, in line with previous studies on neighbouring, interviewees often seemed to disagree on where to draw the line (Stokoe 2006). For example, Rajesh (21, male, Antillean Dutch, Low SES) described his neighbours as Cape Verdeans who enjoy playing loud music, which he thinks is great because he enjoys doing the same. Yet, other interviewees experienced neighbours – often identified as Antillean – who play loud music as a nuisance. Another form of noise nuisance that interviewees touched upon when describing their bond with nearby neighbours is talking loud or yelling frequently. Interviewees from various ethnic backgrounds ascribed this behaviour to specific ethnic groups (e.g. Surinamese or Antillean). The perception that neighbours do not respect other neighbours’ privacy was mentioned as a barrier to getting to know them. Arjan (56, male, Dutch, low SES) for instance explained that he does not approach his next-door neighbours, one ‘Surinamese’ and ‘the others Antillean’, let alone wants to become
137
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 151 close with them because he feels that his privacy is often violated by them:
We say hello and hi, that’s it… They (next-door neighbours) make a lot of noise, with music… My downstairs neighbour is away often. I will know when he’s home. Because of his music. Interviewer: What do you think about this? I find it annoying, yes. Interviewer: Will you talk to them about this? …No, no, I will keep to myself, I don’t want them to think I’m an asshole… But I do experience a lot of nuisance, yes.
Thus, conflicting norms about proper neighbour behaviour can act as barriers to the development of relations between nearby neighbours, whereas shared norms can build bridges between neighbours with different backgrounds.
Neighbour relations that started off in spaces around the house sometimes spread out to other spaces in the neighbourhood. This also happened with relations that started off in spaces of local institutions. Interviewees described how relationships formed in community centres spread out to other neighbourhood spaces and relationships with nearby neighbours are sometimes sustained in community centres. Aida (36, female, Moroccan Dutch, medium SES):
At a certain moment people also start to meet one another outside of the community centre. Sometimes even become friends. You can tell from them agreeing to see one another, ‘yes, let’s go swimming tonight or visit the library or the market’… (I meet) acquaintances, friends and neighbours (at the community centre) …Whenever a neighbour is ill or something, I will hear about it in there (at the community centre).
6.5.2 Sharing space in local institutions
Also within local institutions, people get acquainted with other visitors through repeated chance encounters. This happened at community centres and initiatives, sports clubs, religious institutions and schools. Some interviewees first went to these institutions on their own, while others were invited by nearby neighbours,
138
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 152 local friends or volunteers at other institutions. Hannah (63, female, Surinamese Dutch, medium SES) got acquainted with several local women through small talk at a community centre, which she visited by herself:
It’s quite a mix of people (at the community centre). I talked to a lady who worked there as a volunteer. We hit off instantly. She told me about herself, and that is how I got to know her. That is how. You just start to talk with some. She was a Dutch lady. There was another woman who worked there, I just started talking to her as well. It’s not difficult for me to approach people. I have good contact with her now.
A second way through which weak ties started off in local institutions is by participation in organised activities and events, such as leisure and career clubs and activities. When people meet repeatedly and are organised around a shared interest or passion (such as language learning, cooking, or exercising), they can identify with each other strongly. Many organised activities are visited by a diversity of people. Their bonding diminishes the cultural, ethnic or religious differences. Hannah (63, female, Surinamese Dutch, medium SES) visits a knitting group and a tinkering group several times a week, through which she has acquainted women with various ethnic backgrounds:
It’s very cosy… There is an Eritrean woman, a Turkish woman, I both know them from the knitting group. The contact lasted. Whenever I see her (Eritrean women) in the streets it’s like ‘hey, how are you?’… Then there’s an Antillean women who is a member of the tinkering group. I’ve known her for years.
Whereas ties with nearby neighbours primarily offered interviewees care and support, the purpose of weak ties that developed in the context of local institutions was mostly companionship. Companionship was provided in settings in which interviewees share a space, sometimes as a part of organised activities, such as within community centers and sports groups. Roland (51, male, Dutch, low SES), lived by himself, was unemployed and had few close friends and family. By regularly visiting community centres, he had many acquaintances, often with diverse backgrounds in terms of age, ethnicity, household type and gender:
139
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 153 I visit the community centre every day in the morning. I read my newspaper and leave it behind for other people to read. In exchange I get two cups of coffee… In the afternoon I’ll go running. I watch a lot of TV. Lately, I visit (another community centre) everyday as well, it’s the social contact, for social contact I suppose.
6.5.3 Dogs and children in public spaces
Locality-based relations rarely started off in local public spaces such as parks, plazas and streets. Interviewees relate this to the fleeting nature of encounters between strangers in public spaces that often act as passage ways, as well as norms about social interaction with strangers in these spaces, as Rick (45, male, Dutch, medium SES) explains:
Well, whenever I see Moroccan women, you know, sitting on a bench outside and talking with each other while their children are playing, I won’t just go and join them. It’s, well, they keep to themselves and I, we also keep to ourselves.
Instead, in public spaces interviewees mostly interact with people who they already know. Maanasa (26, female, Surinamese Dutch, low SES) moved back to the neighbourhood she grew up in three years ago and says:
I meet a lot of people from the old days whom I grew up with. Most of them still live here, or they moved to Noordereiland (adjacent neighbourhood)… (I meet) their parents, or friends of their mothers. I love that… When I walk outside in the summer, when you go out to buy some bread, it takes at least half an hour to get home because you bump into people and chat with them everywhere.
There are two activities in public spaces that did acquaint interviewees with diverse strangers: dog walking and interaction through children. Lauren and her husband Edward (50; 43, Dutch, medium SES) got to know another couple, who they consider as very different, in their neighbourhood by walking their dog:
140
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 154 Lauren: Two blocks away there is a couple (Justin and Britney) with two dogs that we see when we walk our dogs. We occasionally take care of each other’s dogs. We only know them from dog walking… We would hear about each other’s work. One time they asked us for help... This one time we asked Justin if he could help us out... Edward: We could never become close friends… They’re called Justin and Britney. I mean, how did they find each other? It’s so funny. Interviewer: Do you feel that they are like you or that they are different from you? Lauren: Very different, local, I grew up here as well but I have never been able to speak with an accent like that. Never… They have all these tattoos. …But they’re nice people. …It’s nice to have that bond.
Weak ties between interviewed parents were often initiated by children. Children interact with other children and parents in public spaces, but also in shared spaces with neighbours around the house, and at schools and sports clubs and bring parents into contact. Sometimes bonds between local parents are practiced within the privacy of their homes. Vera (41, female, Dutch, high SES):
The back alley behind our homes has only one exit. From a very young age, the children can play there safely. They will go into each other’s gardens. That’s how everyone easily gets into contact with one another… We invite each other for children’s parties, drink a cup of coffee. With some we go for diner, with or without the children… (We meet) at each other’s homes… The children are very fond of each other… they play together, have sleep overs… ‘Could he stay at your place for a while? We need to go somewhere’… and vice versa, ‘can they be at yours for half an hour?’. It is all very natural… the children are almost family. Interviewer: Have you ever received any support from parents elsewhere in the neighbourhood? Yes, for instance contacts through school… Or I once asked other parents, because the children had played together, if my child could go home with them for a bit because I was running late. ‘I’ll come and fetch them then and then. That is possible, yes.
141
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 155 6.5.4 Barriers to diverse locality-based social ties
On top of the conflicting norms about proper neighbour behaviour, like playing loud music, mentioned above, the interviews indicate two key barriers to the development of locality-based personal networks. One is the language barrier. In an effort to enable positive social bonds with neighbours and other local people, interviewees from various socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds argued that it is important that people have some proficiency in the Dutch language. Dunya (40, female, Surinamese Dutch, medium SES) for instance wished that her next- door neighbour would speak Dutch so that they could become closer: “You know, when they have difficulties speaking the (Dutch) language they’ll keep a distance, as if a wall, it is difficult for them to make contact. A language barrier”. Furthermore, several interviewees, for example, Rick (45, male, Dutch, high SES) and Sonia (41, female, Moroccan Dutch, low SES) explained how hearing ethnic groups of youth or women speaking in a foreign language within shared spaces nearby their home and at local institutions and public spaces, makes them feel excluded (see also Atkinson and Kintrea 2000).
Religious differences were also found to discourage local social bonds. Many interviewed women who consider themselves Muslim would for instance only undertake activities and bond with other local women in the neighbourhood, who would however often be different in terms of age, ethnicity or household type. A more pertinent example comes from Pari (36, female, Pakistani Dutch, low SES) whose family keeps somewhat of a distance from non-Muslim locals. She does not allow her children to develop friendships with local Dutch children she explains as she does not approve of their clothes or the degree of interactions between boys and girls. The consumption of alcohol during joint activities between local residents is a reason for her family to avoid such activities:
The community, they’ll put notes in the letter boxes, ‘who wants to join?’, or they’ll ask for volunteers. But I don’t go, my husband does not allow me to acquaint with strangers… Neither do the children. They’re not allowed either… it’s because they do drink beer there, you know.
142
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 156 6.5.5 Overview of how social relations are shaped in spaces
The diagram below gives a schematic overview of the way in which the various shared spaces generate ties between the residents of a neighbourhood. The degree of choice is an important aspect of this process. Neighbours can hardly be avoided, which can lead to conflicts but also to reciprocal relations in providing mutual care and support or joint action to guarantee safety and privacy.
Meeting in local institutions is more of a voluntary nature although many residents rely on these institutions due to a lack of alternatives nearby. Encounters happen more by chance and the purpose of the bonding is more related to companionship and developing capabilities. Public space is far less a space for meaningful encounters, but might lead to mutual support by chance. Children act as a common denominator for all sorts of social relations across all sorts of places.
Table 1. Social bonding in different types of neighbourhood spaces Shared spaces with Local institutions Public spaces Type of Space I neighbours Features L Nature of contact Meeting Meeting Seeing Choice of fellow users Little, dependent on SES Limited choice depending Wide choice on activity spaces Start of bonds Unavoidable encounters; Chance encounters; Dog walking Children; Emergency/crisis Organised activities; Children Children Purpose of bonds Care and support; Safety; Companionship; Social Support Privacy mobility Barriers to bonds Language; Religion; Language; Religion; Language; Religion; Conflicting norms about Conflicting norms about Conflicting norms about neighbouring the use of shared spaces the use of shared spaces
6.6 Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine how living in a highly diverse neighbourhood influences the character and locality of locality-based personal relations. The study drew on interviews with residents in the highly diverse area of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. The study found that for most people the neighbourhood is important for the development of weak ties of neighbours and other local acquaintances. In line with the literature, for households with young
143
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 157 children, a minority ethnic background and a low income the neighbourhood also appeared to be important for the development and maintenance of strong ties of family and friends. The study has demonstrated that ‘birds of a feather’ do not only ‘flock together’ along lines of ethnicity and class: people develop local relations based on all sorts of commonalities and needs, that connect to life style (e.g. enjoying knitting), life course (e.g. having children), religion (being Muslim), or simply experiencing an emergency (e.g. sudden illness of a neighbour). Such shared interests or needs can bridge ethnic divides, particularly within weak ties. Differently form the strong ties, these were generally diverse in terms of ethnicity as well as, age, gender and household type, but less regarding the SES of residents. A possible explanation for that fact that both strong and weak ties were often structured along lines of SES, is that in Feijenoord residents with a high and low SES have few opportunities to meet. Residents with a high SES often live in high SES housing blocks and often make less use of community centres and local schools than lower SES residents. Nevertheless, the picture that derives from our findings is much less pessimistic than the outcomes of other studies suggest: when using a definition of diversity that exceeds ethnicity and class, and considering both weak and strong ties, we did not find evidence that residents live parallel lives. On the contrary, the study found that the commonplace diversity that characterises everyday life in Feijenoord was largely reflected in the networks neighbours and acquaintances. High diversity actually offers opportunities for social cohesion because the number of dimensions along which people can develop weak ties increases in more diverse contexts.
The spaces that facilitate the most repeated interactions and hence weak and strong ties (including both positive experiences and conflicts) are shared spaces between neighbours around the house and (semi-public) local institutions such as community centres, religious institutions and schools. So being next- door neighbours and the collective use of local institutions such as schools and community centres can stimulate the development of diverse social networks. The type of bonds that are being created are different depending on the type of space. Local institutions offer meaningful relations in terms of companionship and even social mobility.
The results have several implications for further research. First, class and ethnicity
144
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 158 are still being used as a priori explanatory categories in studying differences and divides without identifying the underlying causes that create these differences and divides or mechanism that could alleviate these. This research provides several examples of this conceptual shortcoming. The fact that people with a higher socio-economic status have less personal networks in their neighbourhood is not explained by their class as such but by the fact that they live more segregated within the neighbourhood and that their daily activity spaces extend beyond the neighbourhood, providing them with fewer opportunities to meet. Ethnicity as such is not necessarily in the way when making contacts, but language barriers and religious norms can certainly hamper interaction. This research has shown that shared interest and needs can bridge ethnic differences. To really understand the causes of the divides a much wider definition of diversity is needed to also identify communalities that cut across ethnic or class boundaries. Second and directly related to the first point is the limited attention in research for weak ties. Grannoveters ‘strength of weak ties’ as the crucial link between various communities, was based on theoretical and mathematical argumentation. Empirical research to show this strength should be further encouraged. This research was able to show that weak ties can develop between members of different communities of family and close friends in the form of repeated and prolonged interaction in which trust can be built. Including the interactions with neighbours and acquaintances in research on social cohesion provides a step forward in developing a more nuanced view on social cohesion. Third is the use of the neighbourhood as a container concept in the analyses of social cohesion. The research has shown that the spatiality of personal networks is both multi- dimensional and heterogeneous. Neighbour contacts vary at block-level within the wider neighbourhood, some blocks being far more divers than others which has direct effects on the development of both strong and weak ties. Local institutions are clearly situated at a higher spatial scale but vary in the recruitment of users from the neighbourhood, but more importantly provide meeting opportunities and bonds that differ from those that arise in contacts with direct neighbours and public spaces lead to more than fleeting encounters in exceptional cases only. This heterogeneity will go unobserved as long as the neighbourhood is treated as a single entity.
145
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 159 Policies aimed at improving social cohesion, might be more effective and efficient when they contribute to the opportunities to develop weak ties among the residents. Programs to mediate in neighbours conflicts, to support initiatives to increase safety and reduce nuisance at block level, but in particular to create meeting places that allow people from different communities to interact may contribute. Current policies of budget cuts on local institutions (libraries, community centres, and language courses at schools) can be expected to undermine the development of local social networks in diverse, deprived neighbourhoods.
Notes 1 We define socioeconomic position (SES) according to the interviewees’ education level and household income. A low, medium and high SES we roughly define as having, respectively: a primary or lower vocational educational degree and a net monthly household income of <€1670; a pre-university or intermediate educational degree and a net monthly household income of €1670–€3300; a university or university of applied sciences educational degree and a net monthly household income of >€3300. 2 In the study resident age groups are defined as: young 18-30 years; middle-aged 31-65 years; and elderly as 66 years or older. References Allan, G. (2008), Flexibility, friendship and family. Personal Relationships, 15 (1), pp. 1-16. Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34 (6), pp. 959-980. Amin, A. (2012), Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press. Askins, K. (2015), Being Together: Everyday Geographies and the Quiet Politics of Belonging. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 14 (2), pp. 470-478. Atkinson, R. and K. Kintrea (2000), Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Policy & Politics, 28 (1), pp. 93- 108. Blokland, T. (2003), Urban Bonds: Social relationships in an Inner City Neighbourhood. Cambridge: Polity Press. Doff, W. (2010),Puzzling neighbourhood effects. Spatial selection, ethnic concentration and neighbourhood impacts. Delft: Delft University Press. Gesthuizen, M., T. van der Meer and P. Scheepers (2008), Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: testing Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32, pp. 121–142. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology, 68 (6), pp. 1360- 1380.
146
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 160 Hall, S.M. (2015), Super-diverse Street: A ‘trans-ethnography’ across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (5), 22–37. Harris, A. (2014), Conviviality, conflict and distanciation in young people’s local multicultures. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 35 (6), 571–587. Harris, A. (2016), Rethinking Youth Conviviality: The Possibilities of Intercultural Friendship Beyond Contact and Encounter. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), 501–516. Hollingworth S. and A. Mansaray (2012), Conviviality under the cosmopolitan canopy? Social mixing and friendships in an urban secondary school. Sociological Research Online, 17 (3). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/3/2.html. Iqbal, H., S. Neal and C. Vincent (2017), Childrens friendships in super-diverse localities: Encounters with social and ethnic difference. Childhood, 24 (1), pp. 128-142. Lancee B. and J. Dronkers (2008), Etnische diversiteit en sociaal vertrouwen in de buurt en contact van allochtonen en autochtonen met de buren [Ethnic diversity in neighbourhoods and individual trust of immigrants and natives: a replication of Putnam (2007) in a West-European country], Migrantenstudies, 24 (4), pp. 224–249. Laumann, E.O. (1973), Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. New York: Wiley. Lazarsfeld, P.F. and R.K. Merton (1954), Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pp. 8–66. New York: Van Nostrand. Madanipour, A. (1999), Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B, 26 (6), pp. 879-891. Mayblin, L., G. Valentine and A. Winiarska (2016), Migration and Diversity in a Post-Socialist Context: Creating Integrative Encounters in Poland. Environment and Planning A, 48 (5), pp. 960–978. McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin and J.M. Cook (2001), Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 415–44. Mollenhorst, G., B. Volker and H. Flap (2008), Social Contexts and Personal Relationships: The Effect of Meeting Opportunities on Similarity for Relationships of Different Strength.Social Networks, 30 (1), pp. 60–68. Neal, S., C. Vincent and H. Iqbal (2016), Extended encounters in primary school worlds: shared social resource, connective spaces and sustained conviviality in socially and ethnically complex urban geographies. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 464–480 Peterson, M. (2016), Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: How important are encounters in semi-public spaces? Social and Cultural Geography. Published online at: http://www. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667 Pinkster, F.M. (2007), Localised social networks, socialisation and social mobility in a low-income neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 44 (13), pp. 2587-2604. Pinkster, F.M. (2014), “I Just Live Here”: Everyday Practices of Disaffiliation of Middle-class Households in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51 (4), pp. 810-826. Pinkster, F.M. and B. Völker (2009), Local social networks and social resources in two Dutch neighbourhoods. Housing Studies, 24 (2), pp. 225-242.
147
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 161 Putnam R. D. (2007), E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), pp. 137–174. Savage M., C. Allen, R. Atkinson and R. Burrows (2010), Focus article. The politics of elective belonging. Housing, Theory and Society, 27 (92), pp. 115–161. Stokoe E. (2006), Public Intimacy in Neighbour Relationships and Complaints. Sociological Research Online, 11 (3), pp. 1–20. Tasan-Kok T., R. van Kempen, M. Raco and G. Bolt (2013), Towards Hyper-Diversified European Cities: A Critical Literature Review. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Van Eijk, G. (2010), Unequal Networks: Spatial Segregation, Relationships and Inequality in the City. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Van Eijk G. (2011), They Eat Potatoes, I Eat Rice’: Symbolic Boundary Making and Space in Neighbour Relations. Sociological Research Online, 16 (4), pp. 1–12. Van Eijk, G. (2012), Good neighbours in bad neighbourhoods: narratives of dissociation and practices of neighbouring in a ‘problem’ place. Urban Studies, 49 (14), pp. 3009–3027. Van Kempen, R. and B. Wissink (2014), Between places and flows: Towards a new agenda for neighbourhood research in an age of mobility. Geografiska Annaler B, 96 (2), pp. 95-108. Valentine, G. (2013), Living with difference: proximity and encounter in urban life. Geography, 98 (1), pp. 4–9. Verbrugge, L.M. (1977), The structure of adult friendship choices.Social Forces, 56 (2), pp. 576-597. Vertovec, S. (2007), Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024- 1054. Vincent, C., S. Neal and H. Iqbal (2016), Encounters with diversity: Children’s friendships and parental responses. Urban Studies, 54 (8), pp. 1974–1989. Visser, K. (2014), Navigating the neighbourhood: How youths deal with displacement and life in a deprived neighbourhood. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Völker, B., H. Flap and S. Lindenberg (2007), When are neighbourhoods communities? Community in Dutch Neighbourhoods. European Sociological Review, 23 (1), pp. 99-114. Völker B. and H. Flap (2007), Sixteen million neighbors: a multilevel study of the role of neighbors in the personal networks of the Dutch. Urban Affairs Review, 43 (2), pp. 256–284. Weck, S. and H. Hanhörster (2015), Seeking Urbanity or Seeking Diversity? MiddleClass Family Households in a Mixed Neighbourhood in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30 (3), pp. 471-486. Wellman, B. (1992), Which types of ties and networks give what kinds of social support? Advances in Group Process, 9 (1), pp. 207-235. Wessendorf, S. (2014), Being open, but sometimes closed. Conviviality in a super-diverse London neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17 (4), pp. 392-405. Wessendorf S. (2016), Settling in a super-diverse context: Recent migrants’ experiences of conviviality. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 449-63. Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (2009), Everyday Multiculturalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Wood, L.J., B. Giles-Corti, M.K. Bulsara and D.A. Bosch (2007), More than a furry companion: The ripple effect of companion animals on neighborhood interactions and sense of community. Society and Animals, 15 (1), pp. 43–56.
148
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 162 Ye, J. (2016), The ambivalence of familiarity: Understanding breathable diversity through fleeting encounters in Singapore’s Jurong West. Area, 48 (1), pp. 77–83.
149
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 163 150
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 164 “US UP HERE AND THEM DOWN THERE”: HOW DESIGN, MANAGEMENT, AND NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES SHAPE SOCIAL DISTANCE IN A MIXED-TENURE HOUSING 7 DEVELOPMENT
Tersteeg, A.K. and F.M. Pinkster Published in 2015 in: Urban Affairs Review 52 (5), pp. 751-779.
Abstract
Despite the fact that social mix is an essential component of urban policies in Western Europe, it remains unclear at what spatial scale housing diversification programs may be most effective. When people with different backgrounds, household compositions, and lifestyles live in close proximity to one another, the emergence of close social ties is not always guaranteed. On the one hand, living in socially mixed environments may create bridges between residents of different social positions. On the other hand, it can lead to processes of social distancing and reproduce negative stereotypes. This article aims to provide insights into how these diverging experiences of social closeness or distance relate to place-specific features such as housing design, management practices, and the structure of local facilities. Lessons are drawn from a qualitative study on resident experiences of living with difference in a fine-grained mixed-tenure development in a newly built neighborhood in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
151
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 165 7.1 Introduction
Despite a wealth of literature on social mix, it remains unclear at what spatial scale social mix may be most effective (Andersson and Musterd 2010; Arthurson 2010; Galster 2012; Sautkina, Bond, and Kearns 2012). Most studies on housing diversification focus on the effectiveness of mixed-income housing at the neighborhood or community level. Fewer studies investigate how different tenant groups experience living together at a micro-scale (Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph 2012; Stokoe 2006), and even fewer studies focus on the place-specific features that may influence these experiences. Yet, fine-grained mix, sometimes referred to as pepper-potting, has become a widely practiced housing policy strategy in Western European cities today.
When people with different social positions live in close proximity to one another and encounter each other on a daily basis, positive experiences of the ‘other’ are not always guaranteed (Valentine 2008). Living with difference can lead to the situation where tenure groups live parallel lives (Atkinson and Kintrea 2000), develop dissocial attitudes (Chaskin and Joseph 2013), or even come into conflict (Graves 2010). However, under certain circumstances, convenient experiences of social closeness may occur (Kearns et al. 2013). Indeed, the coincidence of physical closeness and social distance can result in complicated and contradictory social processes (Crow, Allan, and Summers 2002). To understand these diverging findings of fine-grained mix, it is essential to study the ways in which context or place-specific factors influence the nature of resident interactions and experiences (Bailey and Manzi 2008). Yet, in-depth evidence on resident perspectives of living in socially mixed housing developments is relatively scarce. Therefore, this study examines to what degree residents experience social closeness and distance in a newly built fine-grained mixed-tenure development.
The study builds on Bourdieu’s (1985) conceptualization of social distance, focusing on the extent to which people feel different from others in terms of behavior, norms and tastes, and other individual attributes, and how they assess or evaluate these differences. Bourdieu (1985, p. 730) argued that differences only lead to social distances when they are perceived as ‘significant’ distinctions in lifestyles. For example, the distinction between owner-occupiers and renters
152
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 166 in a housing development may become meaningful when the former agree that the latter cause more noise nuisance. Nevertheless, social differences among residents do not have to be a problem per se. Some may be observed neutrally or experienced in a positive way, whereas others are more decisive in determining social boundaries. Distinct social groups emerge when people acknowledge and agree that a particular social difference is significant to them, leading to processes of othering. Moreover, as several studies in mixed neighborhoods have also shown (August 2014; Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Fraser et al. 2013; Jackson and Benson 2014), in these subjective processes of boundary drawing, symbolic power differences between social groups may become apparent when some ways of defining, organizing, and using the shared space are legitimized over others (Bourdieu 1989).
The main aim of the article is to understand how resident experiences of living in mixed housing developments are related to place-specific factors such as housing design, management practices, and local facilities and amenities that create additional opportunities for everyday encounters and interactions. The role of the physical context and its interaction with the institutional context remain under- theorized in debates on the effectiveness of social mix. By bringing together Bourdieu’s theory on social boundary drawing and a design perspective, this article, however, illustrates that residents in mixed-tenure settings use demographic, physical and institutional contextual markers to draw social boundaries between resident groups.
We focus on design, management and local facilities in particular, because these features form important elements in Dutch place-making strategies. In the Netherlands, tenure-mix is a key planning strategy not only in area-based interventions in disadvantaged neighborhoods but also in the construction of new neighborhoods. This study, therefore, focuses on a mixed-tenure apartment complex in the newly developed neighborhood of IJburg in Amsterdam, which was planned and designed to be a ‘neighborhood without borders.’ Here, neighbor relations were thought to be constructed afresh rather than reflecting the existing in and out-group configurations and territorial stigma found in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where most empirical evidence on experiences of social mix originates.
153
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 167 The next section provides an overview of existing evidence on living with difference in mixed-tenure projects and discusses a number of place-specific factors that seem to influence resident experiences of social distance such as housing design, management, and neighborhood facilities and amenities. Then the research context and methodology are discussed. The findings show that— despite policy intentions—the reality of living in IJburg is far removed from an idealized ‘neighborhood without borders.’ Although tenure groups in the examined building have a relatively similar socioeconomic background, residents perceive strong social distances between fellow residents. Negative encounters are related to problems in the design of the building and unequal power relations in terms of management of the apartment complex, and the social boundaries that are drawn within the housing complex are further enhanced by the segregated use of neighborhood facilities and amenities.
7.2 Living with differences in fine-grained tenure-mix
Empirical evidence on resident interactions in fine-grained mixed-tenure housing developments is relatively limited, and these studies report diverging outcomes on resident experiences of living with difference. Many studies on social interaction between residents in fine-grained tenure-mixed housing developments describe these relations as socially tectonic (after Butler and Robson 2001), whereby residents of different backgrounds live together in close proximity without interacting much. For example, a recent case study of social cohesion among residents of a new mixed-income development in Milan finds that residents feel more socially close when they live among residents with similar tenures and lifestyles (Mugnano and Palvarini 2013). Atkinson and Kintrea (2000) also found that owners and renters in a mixed-tenure development largely reside in different life worlds, partly due to the fact that the daily activity patterns of renters are more local than those of owners. A study by Tach (2009, p. 291) in a Hope VI mixed-tenure development in Boston even finds that higher-income groups ‘actively resisted the formation of social ties with their neighbors and adopted daily routines that minimized their own and their children’s contact with neighbors and neighborhood spaces.’
154
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 168 Other studies find that housing residents with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, interests, and needs together resulted in significant tensions or even overt conflicts between residents, which reproduced negative stereotypes between tenure groups. For example, Graves (2010) described conflicts between subsidized and market-rate residents in a mixed-income housing community in Boston over parental management strategies and sounds of children’s play in shared outdoor spaces. A study by Stokoe (2006) on public intimacy in neighbor relationships demonstrates that social tensions between neighbors often occur over visual and audio nuisance that transcends the shared boundaries of domestic properties. Such conflicts are often related to differences in lifestyles. Davidson (2012) noted that the experience of social distance between residents may be (re)produced through everyday practices, which reflect more fundamental differences in sociocultural dispositions or habitus (Bourdieu 1989). Observed differences in the use of both private and collective spaces in fine-grained mix housing developments may, therefore, result in residents clearly positioning themselves vis-à-vis the ‘other’ as they construct their own identity (Davidson 2010; Jackson and Benson 2014; Jackson and Butler 2014).
In contrast, a few studies indicate that fine-grained mix can also foster social closeness between residents of different tenure positions. A comparative study by Kearns et al. (2013) of resident perceptions of social mix in three mixed-tenure settings in Glasgow finds that residents in a setting of fine-grained tenure-mix are more positive about tenure-mix and report more social interaction with other tenure groups, rather than in other types of tenure-mix neighborhoods. Kleit (2005, p. 1439) hypothesized that ‘physical integration of tenure types and income groups may be key in helping create neighbor relations among people of different tenures and incomes.’ Similarly, Galster (2012) and Jupp (1999) suggested that fine-grained mix can prevent processes of stigmatization between privileged and more disadvantaged resident groups that are witnessed in studies of tenure-mix at higher levels of scales because residents interact most often and most positively with direct neighbors.
155
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 169 7.2.1 Housing Design
These diverging ideas about and social outcomes of fine-grained tenure-mix may be related to a number of place-specific features that can influence resident interactions. First, several studies suggest that housing design may influence the way in which residents of different social backgrounds experience living together in close proximity. Different aspects of design are thought to be important. One is design coherence of the housing units, which can reduce observable differences between different tenures and thereby positively contribute to bridging social divides (Groves et al. 2003; Norris 2006; Roberts 2007). A coherent design may overcome stigma as it ‘accentuate[s] similarities between residents rather than differences’ (Arthurson 2013, p. 437). This can reduce tenant prejudice about other tenure groups (Casey et al. 2007; Kearns et al. 2013).
Another design element that can influence resident experiences of ‘others’ in their apartment building is the way in which privacy and proximity are balanced (Chaskin and Joseph 2010; Joseph 2008). For example, Stokoe (2006) described how visual and audio nuisance, which transcends resident norms on privacy, generates negative experiences of ‘other’ neighbors. Van Eijk (2011) argued that clear boundaries between ‘in’ and ‘out’ of the home — by way of walls, doors, and fences — are important for neighbor relations, which often develop in shared spaces outside the private home. The boundaries are important because‘neighbour relations are bound up with the (unchosen) spatial proximity of neighbours and the need for privacy in one’s home that follows from this proximity’ (Van Eijk 2011, p. 6). Finally, other researchers have emphasized the importance of a ‘comfortable shared environment among residents of …different backgrounds’ (Chaskin and Joseph 2010, p. 316) for developing positive perceptions between residents of different backgrounds. In several studies, it is argued that shared spaces— parking lots, footpaths, and corridors—can encourage informal positive interactions between residents with different backgrounds (Tunstall and Fenton 2006). For example, Joseph (2008, p. 252) argued that positive experiences between residents can occur ‘where proximity affords repeated interactions or the identification of shared needs and common interests…’ Nevertheless, behavioral differences can cause disputes over appropriate uses of the shared residential environment as well, for example, over unauthorized garbage disposal (Buys 2009). Recent studies on
156
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 170 social outcomes of fine-grained mix show that conflicting expectations on the uses of shared spaces in mixed-tenure developments often generate tensions between owner and renter groups (Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Lelevrier 2013).
7.2.2 Management Practices
A second factor that may influence residents’ perceptions of other tenant groups is the way in which mixed-tenure developments are managed. For example, several studies show that residents experience living in tenure-mix housing negatively when project managers do not provide correct information beforehand about the social structure of the project. In a study on mixed-tenure estates in Ireland, owners felt that they had been given misleading information on the nature of the project prior to purchase (Norris 2006): They were told about the existence of social renters after paying a deposit. Also, they were incorrectly told that renters would be handpicked and their behaviors strictly monitored. However, in cases where purchasers have to be misled into believing they will live in a more socially homogeneous environment than is really the case, Bretherton and Pleace (2011, p. 3442) noted that ‘questions arise about both the ethics and the effectiveness of what is actually an attempt at spatial social ‘integration’ by stealth.’ To foster positive experiences of difference, all resident groups need to be prepared for what they can expect. According to Buys (2009), involving both owners and renters in the early development phases of a project, and guiding them in their early interactions with (future) neighbors, can decrease social distances between the resident groups.
In addition, experiences of social distance may be influenced by the degree to and ways in which the everyday use of shared spaces is regulated. Rules that are suppressing and discriminating particular ways of doing and being within the housing development can exacerbate social divides between different tenure groups (Fraser et al. 2013; McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin 2012; Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn 1998). For example, Graves (2010) illustrated how regulations favored market-rate owners and renters by restricting outdoor playing of the children of public renters in a mixed-income community in Boston. August (2014) found that middle classes in mixed-income neighborhoods in Toronto are better able to translate their interests into formal regulations and thereby impose
157
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 171 their preferences about the use of space onto other resident groups. Yet, good management practices can also provide conditions for positive experiences and social closeness (Bailey and Manzi 2008). For example, Mugnano and Palvarini (2013) showed that empowering vulnerable social groups in the management of mixed-tenure housing developments can decrease social distances between residents, particularly when this happens on a voluntary basis, allowing residents to choose not to participate. Similarly, Chaskin and Joseph (2010, p. 312) stated that social distances between tenants can be decreased by ‘creating or supporting various participatory mechanisms for planning, decision-making, and governance; shaping a range of community events; and establishing different kinds of projects meant to incorporate a broad range of resident participation in concrete activities.’ Inclusive management practices, in which all residents can participate equally and experience equal rights, are therefore found to be crucial for overcoming tensions between tenure groups. At the same time, social differences between residents and unequal power dynamics between owners and public housing renters make this more difficult (Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph 2012; Tunstall and Fenton 2006).
7.2.3 Neighborhood Facilities
Finally, resident experiences of living in mixed-tenure housing may also be influenced by the ways in which they encounter each other in the wider neighborhood (Matejskova and Leitner 2011; Nast and Blokland 2014; Roberts 2007). As Valentine (2008) noted, local facilities and amenities, such as shops, day care centers, gyms, schools, playgrounds, and parks, offer opportunities for intergroup contact through everyday encounters. Jupp (1999) suggested that sharing such facilities can reduce prejudices and decrease social distances between residents with different social positions. Yet, sharing local services and institutions may also reproduce existing patterns of social distance in fine-grained mixed-tenure developments. For instance, when local schools are segregated along income and racial lines, bonds between neighbors with children are likely to develop along these lines as well. In contrast, through inclusive services and institutions—such as mixed local schools—diverse residents can become more acquainted (Casey et al. 2007).
158
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 172 Nonetheless, developing inclusive local facilities, institutions, and amenities has shown to be challenging. Research in gentrifying neighborhoods shows that local services and institutions in mixed-tenure environments often represent the sociocultural interests of residents with high levels of social, financial, and cultural capital (Zukin 2010). Local amenities may become more expensive and, therefore, less accessible for lower-income groups. Conversely, research on social mix projects in disadvantaged neighborhoods shows the opposite: New affluent residents may choose to avoid the neighborhood in their daily routines (Pinkster 2014; Tach 2009). So even when local services and institutions are accessible to all, resident groups may develop different everyday routines. This is most evident in studies of school segregation, whereby parents with more economic and cultural capital bring their children to White schools1—which are thought to provide a higher quality of education—whereas less advantaged parents bring their children to a neighborhood school (see also Boterman 2013; L. Karsten 2011; S. Karsten et al. 2006).
7.3 Research design and methodology
To explore how residents of different tenure positions experience living together in close proximity, and how this is influenced by factors of housing design, management, and local facilities, an in-depth case study was conducted in a fine- grained mixed-tenure development in the relatively new neighborhood of IJburg in Amsterdam. Social mix has been an important element in Dutch urban policies since the early 1990s (Musterd and Andersson 2005; Van Kempen and Bolt 2009). IJburg was planned as a mixed-income quarter at the end of the 1990s. Under the slogan, ‘neighborhood without borders,’ the area was supposed to house people of diverse social classes, with and without disabilities (Broekhuizen, Van Marissing, and Van Wonderen 2012). At the moment, it houses a total of 15,000 people comprising equal groups of social renters, owners, and private renters, but the area will be developed further to house 45,000 people in 10 years’ time. Although IJburg comprises 30% social housing and almost half of its residents do not have a Dutch ethnicity, within the context of Amsterdam, it has a relatively high share of Dutch, middle-class families (Municipality of Amsterdam 2014). IJburg has many services and facilities, including a large shopping center, schools,
159
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 173 sports facilities, cafés, and restaurants. In line with planning discourses in the 1990s, these were built to satisfy the needs of individual users and not to generate cohesive communities (Lupi, Walberg, and Musterd 2007).
The examined housing development in IJburg is a square-formed apartment complex containing 110 dwellings with a common backyard and a 10-story tower at one of its corners (see Figure 1). Of the dwellings, 40% are owner-occupied twoand three-bedroom apartments. These are located on the second and third floor in the low-rise section of the building. The remainder consists of social housing of which approximately 10% is reserved for disabled people, and one- third for large families. Two- and three-bedroom apartments for disabled people are located in two corners of the low-rise section of the building. The large families live in two-story-high family apartments, located at the ground floor. These have their main entrance in the common yard. The remainder of social housing exists of two- and three-bedroom apartments in the tower. Architecturally, the building was designed to prevent observable differences in tenure type and size from the outside. This fine- grained form of tenure-mixing can also be found elsewhere in IJburg.
Figure 1. The examined mixed-tenure development in IJburg. Source: Vink Bouw 2011.
160
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 174 In-depth interviews were held with residents to capture their experiences with living with differences and social closeness and distance toward other residents. After Bourdieu (1989), the study speaks of social distance when respondents experience social differences negatively or when a large gap exists between their experiences and expectations of other resident groups. A form of theoretical sampling was used. Residents were interviewed in the different subsections of the building to ensure a range of tenure types as well as variation along other dimensions of difference such as occupational status, gender, life course, and ethnic background. Sampling stopped when theoretical saturation occurred, thus when narratives started to repeat themselves (Bryman 2012). This led to 20 interviews with 21 respondents. The interviews were held in respondents’ homes and lasted approximately one and a half hours. In addition to resident interviews, semistructured interviews and a round table discussion were held with eight neighborhood professionals, including (former) project developers and managers, and housing officers. These served to contextualize and to triangulate data from the resident interviews and to gain insights into management practices and the original design principles of the apartment complex. Data were collected in the spring and fall of 2013. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the software Atlas.ti.
Table 1 provides an overview of the respondents’ individual characteristics. Most respondents are aged between 35 and 65 years. About half of the respondents have children. Half of the respondents are white Dutch. Almost half of the social renters have a non-Western European ethnic background including Moroccan, Turkish, Iraqi, and Surinamese people. While the interviewed owners have relatively small household sizes part of the renters (those in the family apartments) have relatively large households including three or more children. All respondents with large households have a non-Western European ethnic background. Most respondents have medium- and lower- service-sector jobs such as working as a nurse, taxi driver, pharmacy assistant, primary school teacher, or a small- and medium- sized enterprise (SME) entrepreneur. Furthermore, most have relatively modal household incomes, and only three respondents have relatively high net monthly household incomes for the Dutch context (above €3,000). Although the monthly income levels of households per capita are slightly higher among owners than
161
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 175 among renters, the socioeconomic status of residents in the building is relatively similar, which is a reflection of the fact that social housing in Amsterdam is still accessible to some middle-income groups and — as of yet — not very stigmatized (Musterd 2014).
The interviews addressed respondents’ perceptions of, and interactions with, neighbors as their daily routines in and outside of the neighborhood, and their attitudes toward building management and design and local facilities. During the interviews, the method of narrative mapping was used (Reinders 2015). Respondents were asked to visualize on paper the housing development, the people, and the places in the wider neighborhood that they talked about. During the interview, a map emerged that acts as an instrument to make respondents’ abstract notions of their living spaces more tangible.
Table 1. Demography of the Interviewed Residents. Characteristics Category Respondents Tenure type Owner 7 Social renter 14 Education Primary education 2 Secondary and general vocational 9 Higher vocational 8 Academic degree 2 Occupation Unemployed 5 Retired 1 Employed 15 Incomea <1,400 9 1,400–2,300 6 >2,300 6 Household type Single 6 Single parent with children 5 Couple 5 Couple with children 5 Ethnicity Dutch 12 Other Western Europeanb 2 Non-Western Europeanc 7 a Net monthly household income in Euros. b Western European countries in the case study: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. c Non-Western European countries in the case study: Morocco, Iran, and Suriname.
162
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 176 7.4 Experiences of social distance between resident groups
The interviews with both residents and urban professionals in the apartment complex indicate that the planned social mix has been experienced as highly problematic and that significant social distances exist between residents. Ongoing social tensions in the building have led residents to distinguish between three groups: ‘downstairs’ residents, ‘upstairs’ residents, and ‘tower’ residents. ‘Downstairs’ residents are described as large households of non-Western European ethnic background (Morocco, Suriname, and Iran), with somewhat older children, living in the social rental two-story-high family apartments, located at the ground floor. The ‘upstairs’ residents are white Dutch, have relatively small households, some with young children, and live in the owner-occupied apartments that are located above the family apartments. A third group of residents ‘in the tower’ have diverse ethnic backgrounds (Western and non-Western), relatively small households, some with young children, and live in two-bedroom social rental apartments in the high-rise corner building. This group is seen as somewhat similar to the ‘downstairs’ residents in terms of tenure and ethnic background, but is more like ‘upstairs’ residents in terms of household size and the age of children. Nevertheless, this group is less the subject of social tensions because of their more distant location in the tower.
Underlining the pervasiveness of the social boundaries between the three resident groups, respondents refer to their spatial distribution in the building on their narrative maps, when discussing differences between residents in their stories (see Figure 2). For example, when asked to describe the residents in the building, John says,
I think the owners are just, like me, average, just normal people. ...And the renters are in general young families, often of foreign descent, actually, only of foreign descent, no White people downstairs. In the tower are apartments [with] a similar size as this [apartment]. There are fewer families in there [the tower]: the apartments only have two bedrooms. The tower is quite mixed. It is all social rent, but White people live there as well. [Instead],
163
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 177 downstairs, [floor] one and two ...that is all foreigners. That have multiple children (Owner-occupied upstairs apartment, Dutch, single).
The three resident groups are said not to interact. Respondents explain how they live in different life worlds and miss a connection. For example, Meriam says,
Almost all [residents] downstairs are foreigners. Almost all [residents] upstairs are Dutch. They are totally different. I cannot get used to them. …And, I feel that [the residents from] the upstairs houses do not like me (Social rental downstairs family apartment, non-Western background, couple with three children).
Furthermore, respondents describe the other residents groups in negative ways. Similar to the studies of Chaskin and Joseph and Graves, they often use normative words to express their discontent. For instance, several upstairs and tower residents refer to downstairs residents as ‘those problem families,’ or as ‘anti-social foreigners.’ Vice versa, Harriett (social rental downstairs family apartment, non-Western background, lives with two sons, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren) refers to her upstairs neighbors as ‘the-terrible-people.’
Communication with people from other resident groups is often experienced as unpleasant, particularly between upstairs and tower residents who are white Dutch and downstairs residents of non-Western ethnic background. Several respondents discuss how the groups regularly yell at one another, often between ‘upstairs’ and ‘downstairs,’ reconfirming the perceived divides between the groups. According to Marlene, at times,
The conflict became so intense and there was so much aggression between one another. The owners accused the downstairs renters of many things and in their turn the renters were yelling many things to the owners (Social rental apartment in tower, non-Dutch Western background, single).
164
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 178 Figure 2. Narrative map of owner, illustrating the spatial distribution of resident groups in the building.
7.5 Housing design
Several aspects of the building design were found to facilitate the evidenced social distances between the three resident groups. First, the allocation and distribution of different tenure types within the development contribute to the construction of social groups. The family apartments on the ground floor are only occupied by social renters, who all have a non-Western ethnic background. In contrast, owner- occupied dwellings are located on higher floors. Both aspects make it easy for respondents to perceive the dwellings and their inhabitants as a distinctive group (Arthurson 2013; Groves et al. 2003; Roberts 2007). Indeed, Sue says,
There are many foreign people in the houses downstairs, and more of the actually high educated Dutch people at the upper floors. Personally, I would say: mix it all up. …Otherwise, there will always be that difference (Social rental apartment in tower, ‘native’ Dutch, single parent with two
165
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 179 children).
Likewise, Meriam says,
[These are] all large families down here. I do not find it a smart design. They all have five rooms down here. Of course at least five people will come to live there. …That is a lot. They planned it this way.
An interviewed housing officer stated that in this development, owners literally look down on renters with a family apartment, preventing the two to develop healthy neighbor relationships.
Second, respondents’ stories show that in their experience, the building’s design does not secure a proper balance between privacy and proximity. A main source of tension among resident groups is the outdoor play of children of downstairs residents who play in the common yard. Upstairs and tower residents with a Dutch or other Western European ethnicity find that the children make too much noise when playing in the yard, particularly in the summer. The children are said to destroy the garden and other parts of the development with their play, and to play rough with one another. Some upstairs residents visualize their experiences on their narrative maps. For example, Figure 3 shows one of Anna (owner-occupied upstairs apartment, white Dutch, single parent with two children) and illustrates the noise and rough play of children of renters in the common yard.
Echoing findings of Chaskin, Sichling, and Joseph (2013), the noise, vandalism, and rough play are thought to be the result of a lack of supervision of the mothers of these children. For instance, according to Anna,
Many children from renters yell, scream, are more aggressive [and] are left to themselves in a certain way when they are outside. …And well, the owners, we always look from our balconies where our child is about. Those mothers you never see looking where their children are. We all find that very strange.
166
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 180 Figure 3. Narrative map of owner, indicating noise and rough play of children in the yard.
Consequently, the children of upstairs residents and Western European renters in the tower do not play with the children of downstairs residents. Rather, they let their children play on the balconies of the upper floors or elsewhere in the neighborhood. As another consequence of the nuisance, upstairs residents and some residents in the tower complain that it inhibits them to open up their windows or use the balconies for relaxation. Residents in the apartments for disabled people also discuss the conflicts about children of residents in the family apartments, yet in less negative ways as their apartments do not border the common yard.
167
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 181 In contrast, downstairs residents feel that the shared yard provides a safe, enclosed environment for (their) children to play independently outside. They are relatively large families with few private outdoor space.They are aware of and disturbed by the discontent from residents upstairs, about their children’s play. They notice that many do not let their children play downstairs. Several downstairs residents believe that the segregation of upstairs and downstairs children is rooted in ethnic prejudice. Salma states,
A lot of upstairs neighbors with Dutch children do not let their children play here with our children. When it is a nice day, there are opened balcony doors. They let their children play there [at the balconies]... They keep their children away... Perhaps because they do not want [them to play] with foreign children... I find it strange to not let your child play here, why? You can see that there are other children playing outside (Social rental downstairs family apartment, non-Western background, couple with four children)
Two aspects of the design were found to particularly contribute to the observed conflicts over noise nuisance. Respondents argue that the design of the building with a small shared yard surrounded by at least four-story apartments turns it into a resonance box. Mike, for example, argues,
If you stand downstairs here, and you yell or you shout something it reflects against all those walls. That is simply not taken into account in the design (Owner-occupied upstairs apartment, white Dutch, single).
In addition, the main entrances and outdoor spaces of the family apartments and owner-occupied apartments, the living room windows of part of the tower apartments, and the shared walking spaces are all located on the inside of the development adjoining the common yard. This causes conflicts because respondents use and have different expectations of the uses of these spaces. For example, upstairs residents wish to use their balconies for relaxation and hence expect it to be quiet, whereas residents in the family apartments want to use the common yard downstairs for their children to play.
168
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 182 Finally, several respondents experience the design of the shared spaces in the building as noninclusive. For example, respondents from all resident groups argue that as adults they would like to but do not use the shared garden because it has no seats. Upstairs residents and Western residents in the tower often add that the garden is taken over by the children of downstairs residents anyway. Furthermore, a disabled respondent argues that she cannot access the common yard with her wheelchair. A more inclusive design of shared spaces could enable more positive encounters between residents with different backgrounds (Casey et al. 2007; Chaskin and Joseph 2010, 2013; Kearns et al. 2013).
7.6 Management practices
In addition, management practices were found to contribute to social distances between white Dutch owners and the social renters of minority ethnic background in the ground floor apartments. First, the advertisement of the housing development by brokers has raised expectations among owners that are in sharp contrast with their experienced realities. According to Mike, owner-occupiers were told that
‘it is a mixed block, with owner-occupied and rented houses, but the rented apartments are mainly occupied by disabled and elderly people.’ That is how it was presented to me by the broker... if I could go back five years in time with the knowledge that I have now, I would never, honestly never ever have bought in this building. I am confident and I know that other people think of this in the same way.
Furthermore, in the advertisement for the building, it says that “the garden ...will have benches ...[and that] the design will shortly be an extended living room for all. Every season.” Yet, benches and trees were never realized in the common yard by the developer due to financial cuts, the common yard is not experienced as inclusive, and it has evoked tensions between resident groups. The findings reconfirm that misleading owner-occupiers into thinking they will live in a more socially homogeneous environment than is really the case can enlarge social divides among resident groups (Bretherton and Pleace 2011; Norris 2006; Vale
169
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 183 1996).
Second, respondents observe a considerable power asymmetry between the degree to which residents of different tenures can influence the maintenance and management of the housing development (Graves 2010). The apartment complex is governed by an Association of Owners that exists of both the housing association and individual owners. An officer of the Housing Association is supposed to represent the interests of renters in the management of the building. However, the majority of renters, both with family apartments on the ground floor and in the tower apartments, feel that their voice is not heard. Alice, for instance, explains,
Officially it is 40% owner-occupied and 60% rented [housing]. …I would like to see that renters actually get these votes. Because I have never, honestly never, been asked for my opinion. And at the bottom of the letters it says ‘opinion of renters’ or ‘on behalf of the renters.’ …So there is one fool of the housing association that represents all the renters, we renters do not know him anyway, we have never seen him. But on behalf of the housing association he says what the renters want. Often they [the Housing Association] actually do things… [which] as a renter I would never want to happen (Social rental apartment for disabled residents, white Dutch, couple without children).
Under Dutch law, renters in mixed-income complexes have the right to form a so- called resident committee of renters that advises the Housing Association on their decisions in the Association of Owners, but such a committee has never existed for this building. Nonetheless, the institutional entities would be separate for owners and renters, encouraging residents to distinguish between the two groups, and it would still not be possible for renters to directly influence managerial decisions of the Association of Owners.
Owners do not see problems with how the Association of Owners operates. They argue that owners naturally have, and take, more responsibility for their residential environment than renters because they own the house that they have paid for through hard work. This view is even shared by some social renters with an apartment in the tower. For example, according to Anna,
170
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 184 Generally, social renters …are a bit more heedless. People that buy a house, this whole block, this is the first house for all these people. Therefore, they are very proud of [it] and yes, careful with it.
The unequal distribution of power has allowed owners to implement regulations and to modify the shared spaces of the development in a way that — respondents of all resident groups agree — is often not in the interest of social renters, particularly downstairs residents. For example, in response to nuisances of children’s play in the common yard, owners have utilized — what they call — ‘child unfriendly plants’ and wooden beams in the downstairs courtyard that prevent children from playing football, as shown in Figure 4.
Not surprisingly, renters on the ground floor express discontent about the ways in which the Association of Owners is governing the apartment complex. They mention receiving letters by the Association of Owners and the Housing Association with rules and measures that they do not agree with and about
Figure 4. Measures to reduce noise from children playing in the courtyard: wooden beams and prickly plants. Source: The authors.
171
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 185 which they have not been consulted. The letters include age, time, and behavioral restrictions for children’s play in the shared yard, the rule that residents are (not) allowed to grow plants in the shared yard other than the existing child-unfriendly ones, the request for residents on the ground floor to water the child-unfriendly plants, and a description of what are considered ‘good’ neighboring practices (e.g., on greeting behavior, the use of the private spaces adjacent to the shared yard and the passage ways, (un)authorized rubbish disposal, and noise standards). According to downstairs respondents and one respondent in an apartment for disabled people, the owners upstairs behave superior because they believe that they belong to a higher social class, or have more rights. Harriett, for instance, says,
You have owner-occupied houses and social housing. The people of the owner-occupied houses feel as if they are better people and that they are allowed to run the place and the people of the social housing are not.
Furthermore, some believe that the perceived superiority of owners is rooted in racism. According to Salma,
[Owners] feel higher than us, because we are foreigners... I disapprove of that …because we are all people, be it rich, be it poor, or whatever... Perhaps it is their character, or the way they were brought up. They bring up their children like that as well. I disapprove of that. Maybe there are bad Moroccans and Turks, but you cannot judge all people for that. They are not all the same. You should get to know them first before you judge them.
Finally, according to all residents, management by the Housing Association has exacerbated social tensions by not responding quickly and adequately to social and maintenance problems in the development. Instead of acting as referee or mediator for individual and joint problems between residents, the perceived lack of responsiveness of the responsible housing professionals helps sustain the social divides between resident groups (Vale 1996). For example, Mike says,
The nuisance that takes place, the Housing Association is responsible for
172
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 186 those rented houses, they do nothing. [They] always say to be tied by hands and feet, not to be able to do anything. I don’t know the regulations well enough for this but yes, not taking responsibility.
Social renters also complain about low maintenance levels of rented properties by the housing association. In contrast, interviewed housing officers argue that it is the responsibility of residents themselves to solve problems, that individual owners are largely responsible for physical maintenance, and that the housing association does not have the financial means to become more involved. Clearly, there are very different expectations about the role of housing professionals. Consequently, owners state that inactiveness of the housing association has motivated them to increase their influence in the management of the building through the Association of Owners, sustaining the divides between owners and renters groups.
7.7 Neighborhood facilities
Finally, in addition to housing design and management practices, the particular configuration of local facilities in the wider neighborhood has reinforced social distances between residents in a number of ways. First, not only do the interviews indicate that the respondents from the different tenure groups use different local facilities and amenities, but these differences in everyday routines are also discussed by respondents to draw boundaries between the social groups in the building. According to respondents, neighborhood facilities do not serve as places of encounter (Valentine 2008) between residents of different tenure positions. Downstairs residents state that current neighborhood facilities cater to more affluent residents in the neighborhood, but not to lower-income groups. Vivian explains,
They [planners] want more arts, what does that bring for me? In the local newspaper, De Brug, I read about activities... sailing and surfing [pulls a face]... There was a market but they [planners] decided the type of stalls: vegetables, organic [food], things. What does it bring me? ...[I’d rather have] just a market with many [less expensive] things, clothes, diverse
173
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 187 things (Social rental apartment in tower, non-Western background, couple with two children).
Several social renters describe that they are forced to visit other parts of Amsterdam for their interests and needs. Elsa observes,
People with money go to the nice cafés at the harbor. Those are mostly people from the Gold Coast [a more affluent part of IJburg] and from this block [points towards owner-occupied houses]. Other than that, there are no facilities that people like you and me—normal people—can use. There is a bank, and a snack bar, that is it... So, there are no facilities anyway... awful, I find it disastrous (Social rental apartment in tower, non-Dutch Western background, single parent with two children).
In contrast, most interviewed owners are quite satisfied with local facilities, but they are aware that renters do not use them. Owners regularly use local cafés and restaurants, a gym, and so forth. They also mention visiting local parks and beaches with their children and fellow owners more often than renters in the building do with their children. At first glance, these findings seem to contradict the finding that there are relatively small differences between owners and renters in terms of income, educational background, and occupational status. An explanation may be that social renters have to support bigger families. More importantly, however, different consumption preferences and practices may also reflect lifestyle and ethnic differences, whereby minority residents in particular miss group-specific facilities in the neighborhood.
In terms of the use of local public institutions, another difference between the resident groups relates to enrollment in local schools. Respondents of all resident groups observe that there is significant segregation between primary schools within the area, which reproduces the perceived social divides between resident groups in the building, particularly between residents with a Western European and non-Western European background. Respondents collectively distinguish between Black, mixed, and White schools in the neighborhood1. According to owners, and Western European renters, the schools are segregated by the socioeconomic status of parents as well. In the examined housing development,
174
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 188 children with parents with a non-Western European background and those with a Western European ethnicity go to school together more often. Consequently, the parents of these children are said to interact with one another more often and to have closer social bonds. According to Elsa,
In the morning, parents leave the development and low-educated, mostly Black parents go that way and White parents go that way [a different way]. So, regarding children, total segregation... Therefore, you don’t know your neighbors as parents at school. So it has an impact... You get to know each other at school.
Respondents with ‘Black’ children accuse residents with ‘White’ children of deliberately keeping their children away from schools with Black children in the same way that they do not let their children play with the children downstairs. The interviews with the respondents with White children confirm this, explaining that they are worried about a bad influence on their children (see also Boterman 2013; Butler and Hamnett 2007; Hollingworth and Williams 2010). Although the initial goals of the municipality were to generate inclusive primary schools in IJburg, this has clearly failed. The class and ethnic differences between primary schools are both seen as symbolic for and amplify the social distances between resident groups along lines of ethnicity, and tenure type, and the location of the dwelling in the examined building.
7.8 Discussion and conclusion
Literature on resident experiences of social distance in tenure-mix projects show diverse results, varying from a situation where tenure groups experience significant social tensions, live parallel lives, or even become socially closer. The aim of this article was to develop a better understanding of these diverging findings, by exploring the way in which place-specific factors of fine-grained, mixed-tenure developments may contribute to positive or negative experiences of residents in terms of social distance or social closeness between different tenure groups. The study used an in-depth approach and incorporates multiple factors of design, management and local facilities to explore the contextualized nature of
175
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 189 these experiences. The study focused on a newly built neighborhood because here social distances between neighbors were thought to be constructed afresh rather than a function of in- and out- group (re)productions over time. The research outcomes complement existing studies of tenure-mixed projects at higher spatial scales.
In line with previous studies (Chaskin and Joseph 2013; Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph 2012; Fraser et al. 2013; Graves 2010; Joseph 2008; Norris 2006), significant social distances were found among residents in the fine-grained mixed-tenure project in IJburg. Clearly, the findings do not reflect a situation of ‘social tectonics’ (Butler and Robson 2001). Instead, residents interact with one another quite a lot and take clear positions versus the ‘other’ at the group level (Jackson and Butler 2014), resonating with Davidson’s (2010, p. 525) observation that there are ‘inherent politics bound up in any act of neighboring.’ Despite the uniform housing design in the apartment complex — in which different tenures are not visible from the outside — and the relatively small social distances in terms of educational training, occupational status, and income, recurrent negative encounters between residents have led to considerable social divides, in particular between apartment owners and a specific group of social renters. In these processes of boundary drawing, tenure is not the only fault line. Rather, differences in tenure coincide with differences in ethnicity, household size, and location within the apartment complex, leading residents to distinguish between three groups: those who live ‘upstairs’ (owners, white Dutch, small families, some with young children), ‘downstairs’ (social renters, non-Western migrants, large families with somewhat older children), and ‘in the tower’ (social renters, varied ethnic background, different household compositions, some with young children). This third group of ‘tower’ residents is interesting because they seem to fulfill an ambivalent position in the apartment building, siding with upstairs residents for some issues and downstairs residents for other issues, also depending on their own social background. For example, white Dutch tower residents may identify with owners, when it comes to conflicts about noise and parenting practices, whereas at other times sympathizing to some degree with their fellow social renters of minority background downstairs when it comes to unequal treatment of tenure groups in management practices and the quality of neighborhood facilities. Similarly,
176
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 190 from the perspective of ‘upstairs’ owner-occupiers, the tower residents are seen as ‘good’ social renters who are more like them. So for these groups, tenure differences do not transform into social distance, reinforcing Musterd’s (2014) analysis of the particular status of social housing in the Netherland as not (yet) very residualized or stigmatized, compared with many other Western European and North American contexts. These findings illustrate that differences between residents along tenure and ethnicity are not reproduced in fixed categories of renter versus owner or minority versus majority (white Dutch).
Moreover, despite the social boundaries drawn at the group level between downstairs and upstairs residents in particular, respondents in this study do report positive interactions and everyday friendly encounters with residents from the ‘other’ categories. It seems, however, that these positive experiences between individual residents are hardly ever scaled up to the level of the group (Valentine 2008). In other words, white Dutch owner-occupiers would, for instance, mention regularly greeting a minority ethnic neighbor downstairs, while expressing intolerant, sometimes explicitly prejudiced discriminatory views about ‘those’ inconsiderate social renters downstairs. This raises important questions about the value and meaning of such everyday positive encounters for decreasing social distances and, hence, studies of and policy for creating such encounters.
What is striking about the negative experiences of living with difference is that they are the opposite of the planning ideal behind IJburg to create ‘a neighborhood without borders.’ In fact, although we only examine one development, reports in the media and resident meetings about social conflicts between residents in other fine-grained mixed developments in IJburg indicate that our findings do not stand alone. Several place-specific features of housing design, housing management, and neighborhood facilities and amenities were found to intensify social boundaries. First, the distribution of apartments for different tenures as well as types of households, the compact building design, as well as the location of leisure, passage, and outdoor spaces on the inside of the building were found to emphasize the different uses of these spaces among different types of residents (Chaskin and Joseph 2010; Roberts 2007). The design did little to safeguard residents’ need for privacy in a context of close proximity to people with very different ways of living (Stokoe 2006; Van Eijk 2011).
177
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 191 Rather than reducing these social tensions, the management structure and everyday management practices were found to enhance tensions between the different resident groups (August 2014; Chaskin, Sichling, and Joseph 2013). Most notably, the asymmetry in the decision-making power between owner- occupiers and renters enabled the former to modify the rules and regulations and the physical residential environment in a way that does not reflect the interests of the latter. Owners have, for instance, been able to introduce child-unfriendly plants and wooden logs in the shared yard to prevent—mainly renters’—children from playing here and making noise. Consequently, as a result of the particular management structure, symbolic power differences between the upstairs owners and the downstairs renters have become inscribed in the physical layout of the apartment complex (Bourdieu 1989; Davidson 2010), excluding ways of using the shared courtyard that are deemed unfit. Not surprisingly, the social renters, particularly those in the ground floor apartments, feel marginalized within their own building, a feeling that is enhanced by the fact that also in the wider neighborhood they feel that their everyday needs have not been accommodated. Local facilities and amenities are perceived to mostly reflect the interests and lifestyles of the owners, and segregated routines in the neighborhood were seen as symbolic by all respondents for the divisions within the apartment complex.
Combined, these findings show that creating a ‘neighborhood without borders’ entails much more than mixing tenures within a coherent design. In the case of IJburg, other place-specific factors, at the scale of the apartment complex itself and at the scale of the neighborhood, could have been planned in a more inclusive way. Consequently, what could have been a ‘best practice’ case seems to actually have become a worst case scenario: Living with difference has resulted in substantial social tensions and even overt conflict in which social renters feel stigmatized and out of place in their own homes. In fact, in a recent meeting about IJburg with urban and housing professionals and active residents, it was cynically agreed upon that the original intention to design “exciting inner court yards in fine-grained mix projects has led to altogether too much excitement of the wrong kind.” Housing corporations have, therefore, apparently decided to avoid further fine-grained mix projects in new extensions of the neighborhood.
The question can be raised, however, whether this is ultimately the lesson that
178
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 192 should be taken from the experiences in IJburg. This study suggests that the ‘blame’ for the problems does not lie in design alone. Fine-grained mix also requires inclusive and proactive management and an inclusive facility structure at the scale of the neighborhood. The study, therefore, demonstrates the need for more integrated approaches in the planning for and management of mixed-tenure projects, which acknowledge the wider socioinstitutional residential context and facilitate more opportunities for positive encounters between different tenure groups.
Notes 1 In public and policy debates in the Netherlands, schools with high numbers of non-Western minority ethnic pupils are referred to as Black schools, whereas schools with high numbers of Dutch pupils without a recent migration background are referred to as White schools. Yet, “Black” and “White” schools do not only refer to the ethnic com- position of the pupils. Rather, they are used interchangeably with “bad” and “deprived” schools (Boterman 2013).
References Andersson, R. and S. Musterd (2010), What scale matters? Exploring the relationships between individuals’ social position, neighbourhood context and the scale of neighbourhood. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 92 (1), pp. 23–43. Arthurson, K. (2010), Operationalising social mix: Spatial scale, lifestyle and stigma as mediating points in resident interaction. Urban Policy and Research, 28 (1), pp. 49–63. Arthurson, K. (2013), Mixed tenure communities and the effects on neighbourhood reputation and stigma: Residents’ experiences from within. Cities, 35, pp. 432–438. Atkinson, R. and K. Kintrea (2000), Owner-occupation, social mix and neighbourhood impacts. Policy and Politics, 28 (1), pp. 93–108. August, M. (2014), Negotiating social mix in Toronto’s first public housing redevelopment: Power, space and social control in don mount court. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1160–1180. Bailey, N. and M. Tony (2008), Developing and sustaining mixed tenure housing developments. Round Up. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Boterman, W.R. (2013), Dealing with diversity: Middle-class family households and the issue of black and white schools in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 50 (6), pp. 1113–1147. Bourdieu, P. (1985), The social space and the genesis of groups.Theory and Society, 14 (6), pp. 723–744. Bourdieu, P. (1989), Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7 (1), pp. 14–25. Bretherton, J. and N. Pleace (2011), A difficult mix: Issues in achieving socioeconomic diversity in deprived UK neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 48 (16), pp. 3433–3447.
179
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 193 Broekhuizen, J., E. van Marissing and R. van Wonderen (2012), Samen leven met verschillen in oost. Spanningen en vertrouwen in Betondorp, Indische buurt en Haveneiland west [Living together with differences in east. Tensions and trust in Betondorp, Indische buurt and Haveneiland west]. Amsterdam: Bureau Onderzoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam/Verwey-Jonker Instituut. Bryman, A. (2012), Expert voices. In: S.E. Baker and R. Edwards, How many qualitative interviews is enough. Review discussion paper, National Centre for Research Methods, pp. 18–20. Retrieved from:
180
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 194 white middle classes in London comprehensive schools. Space and Polity, 14 (1), pp. 47–64. Jackson, E. and M. Benson (2014), Neither ‘deepest, darkest peckham’ nor ‘run-of-the-mill’ east Dulwich: The middle classes and their ‘others’ in an inner-London neighbourhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1195–1210. Jackson, E. and T. Butler (2015), Revisiting ‘social tectonics’: The middle classes and social mix in gentrifying neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 52 (13), pp. 2349-2365. Joseph, M.L. (2008), Early resident experiences at a new mixed-income development in Chicago. Journal of Urban Affairs, 30 (3), pp. 229–57. Jupp, B. (1999), Living together: Community life on mixed tenure estates. London: Demos. Karsten, L. (2011), Children’s social capital in the segregated context of Amsterdam: An historical- geographical approach. Urban Studies, 48 (8), pp. 1651–1666. Karsten, S., C. Felix, G. Ledoux, W. Meijnen, J. Roeleveld and E. van Schooten (2006), Choosing segregation or integration? The extent and effects of ethnic segregation in dutch cities. Education and Urban Society, 38 (2), pp. 228–247. Kearns, A., M.J. McKee, E. Sautkina, J. Cox and L. Bond (2013), How to mix? Spatial configurations, modes of production and resident perceptions of mixed tenure neighbourhoods. Cities, 35, pp. 397–408. Kleit, R.G. (2005), Hope VI New communities: Neighborhood relationships in mixed-income housing. Environment and Planning A, 37 (8), pp. 1413–1441. Lelevrier, C. (2013), Forced relocation in France: How residential trajectories affect individual experiences. Housing Studies, 28 (2), pp. 253–271. Lupi, T., A.M. Walberg and S. Musterd (2007), Pioniers in place making: Proeftuin IJburg [Pioneers in place making: Laboratory IJburg]. Gouda: Habiforum. Matejskova, T. and H. Leitner (2011), Urban encounters with difference: The contact hypothesis and immigrant integration projects in eastern Berlin. Social and Cultural Geography, 12 (7), pp. 717–741. McCormick, N.J., M.L. Joseph and R.J. Chaskin (2012), The new stigma of relocated public housing residents: Challenges to social identity in mixed-income developments. City and Community, 11 (3), pp. 285–308. Mugnano, S. and P. Palvarini (2013), ‘Sharing space without hanging together’: A case study of social mix policy in Milan. Cities, 35, pp. 417–422. Municipality of Amsterdam (2014), Gebiedsagenda ‘light’ IJburg en Zeeburgereiland [Area Agenda ‘light’ IJburg and Zeeburgereiland]. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam. Retreived from:
181
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 195 Studies, 14 (2), pp. 199–218. Pinkster, F.M. (2014), I just live here: Everyday practices of disaffiliation of middle class households in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51 (4), pp. 810–826. Reinders, L.G.A.J. (2015), Re-imagining Nieuwland: Narrative mapping and the mental geography of urban space in a Dutch multi-ethnic neighbourhood. In: W. Fischer-Nebmaier, M.P. Berg and A. Christou (ed.), Narrating the city: Histories, space and the everyday. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 97-135. Roberts, M. (2007), Sharing space: Urban design and social mixing in mixed income communities. Planning Theory and Practice, 8 (2), pp. 183–204. Rosenbaum, J.E., L.K. Stroh and C.A. Flynn (1998), Lake Parc place: A study of mixed-income housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9 (4), pp. 703–740. Sautkina, E., L. Bond and A. Kearns (2012), Mixed evidence on mixed tenure effects: Findings from a systematic review of UK studies, 1995–2009. Housing Studies, 27 (6), pp. 748–782. Stokoe, E. (2006), Public intimacy in neighbour relationships and complaints. Sociological Research Online, 11 (3), pp. 1–20. Tach, L.M. (2009), More than brick and mortar: Neighborhood frames, social processes and the mixed-income redevelopment of a public housing project. City and Community, 8 (3), pp. 269–99. Tunstall, R. and A. Fenton (2006), In the mix: A review of mixed income, mixed tenure and mixed communities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Vale, L.J. (1996), Public housing redevelopment: Seven kinds of success. Housing Policy Debate, 7 (3), pp. 491–534. Valentine, G. (2008), Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography, 32 (3), pp. 323–337. Van Eijk, G. (2011), ‘They eat potatoes, I eat rice’: Symbolic boundary making and space in neighbour relations. Sociological Research Online, 16 (4), pp. 1–12. Van Kempen, R. and G. Bolt (2009), Social cohesion, social mix, and urban policies in the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24 (4), pp. 457–475. Zukin, S. (2010), Naked city: The life and death of authentic urban spaces. New York: Oxford University Press.
182
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 196 8 CONCLUSION
183
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 197 8.1 Introduction
The purpose of this dissertation was to inform academic and policy debates about the challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods. The study sought to enrich the academic literature on social cohesion in deprived urban contexts in four ways.
First, the literature has predominantly focussed on social cohesion across ethnic and socioeconomic groups in deprived areas. Yet, ethnicity and socioeconomic status are not the only dimensions on which residents differ from one another. Furthermore, focussing on these categories a priori provides little information on the dimensions of difference that are meaningful to residents. In order to fully understand processes of social cohesion in deprived areas, the dissertation has used a broad conceptualisation of urban diversity, including e.g. activity patterns, culture, ethnicity, religion, duration of stay, lifestyle, household type, legal status, migration history and income, education and occupation. The dissertation positions itself in the relatively recent field of qualitative studies, mostly in the fields of super-diversity and hyper-diversity, that look at a broad set of social dimensions when examining social interaction in diverse contexts (Askins 2015; Hall 2015; Peterson 2016; Wessendorf 2014, 2016; Wise and Velayutham 2014; Ye 2016). This field of studies emphasises the importance of looking beyond ethnicity and socioeconomic status in urban studies on social cohesion, because the diversity of cities and neighbourhoods will only become more complex (Blommaert 2013; Tasan-Kok et al. 2013; Vertovec 2007, 2010; Wessendorf 2014), also in the Dutch urban context (Crul 2016; Hoekstra 2017; Scholten and van Breugel 2017).
Second, the literature on social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods has largely focussed on social networks of family and friends, Grannovetter’s (1973) strong ties. Yet, social network studies indicate that weak ties of neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances are more diverse than strong ties of family and friends (Kleinhans 2005; Mollenhorst et al. 2008). Thus, theoretically and practically, they offer more opportunities for positive relationships across differences. This dissertation has looked at both strong and weak ties in order to come to a more comprehensive understanding of social cohesion in deprived urban neighbourhoods. The finding that the weak ties of interviewees are more diverse than their strong ties, has led
184
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 198 part of this dissertation to zoom into these types of relations.
Third, the study complements the relatively rich literature on the meaning of a highly diverse, deprived residential context for middle classes (Boterman 2013; Jackson and Benson 2014; Jackson and Butler 2014; Jackson and Butler 2015; Neal and Vincent 2013; Pinkster 2014; Schuermans et al. 2015; Tissot 2014) with a study of experiences of multiple resident groups, including those with a lower socioeconomic position and/or long-term residents. The underlying rationale is that the dominant focus on middle classes overlooks that neighbourhood diversity is meaningful to all resident groups in deprived areas, also those with less choice when it comes to their dwelling and neighbourhood.
Finally, many studies on social cohesion in diverse, deprived contexts have used a standardised definition of the neighbourhood, for instance a four or five digit postal code (Galster and Hedman 2013; Van Ham et al. 2012; Sharkey and Faber 2014). This has provided insight in the extent to which personal networks are local, but not in the spatiality of these local relations. Also, it does not pay attention to the fact that people define the boundaries of their neighbourhood differently and use their neighbourhood differently (Cresswell 2014). The dissertation sought to deconstruct the ‘black box of neighbourhood’ by providing insight in the diverging ways in which residents use local spaces in their residential environment in relation with their perceptions of and engagement with local diversity.
The main research questions of this dissertation were:
How do residents of deprived neighbourhoods face the challenges of living among diverse others? How do the residents seize the opportunities for positive relations across difference?
To answer these questions, six research questions were empirically investigated:
1. How is diversity dealt with in urban policies and neighbourhood initiatives in Rotterdam and what can be learned from grass-roots initiatives for the governance of urban diversity? 2. What attracts people to diverse, deprived urban areas? How do perceptions
185
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 199 of local diversity play a role in their choice of and satisfaction with the neighbourhood? 3. How do residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods draw symbolic boundaries? 4. To what degree do the perceptions, social networks and socio-spatial practices of adults and youths in highly diverse contexts differ? 5. When, where and how do residents of highly diverse neighbourhoods develop a diverse social network in their neighbourhood? 6. To what degree do residents experience social distance in a newly built fine-grained mixed-tenure development and how are these experiences shaped by factors of design, management and local facilities?
The dissertation drew on multimethod qualitative fieldwork in highly diverse, deprived neighbourhoods of Rotterdam (chapters 2-6) and Antwerp (chapters 3-4) as well as in the newly-built area of IJburg in Amsterdam (chapter 7).
The remainder of this chapter summarises the main findings of each empirical chapter. This process leads to the final answer to the main research questions. The next section discusses the theoretical implications of the dissertation, also paying attention to its limitations and suggestions for future research. In the last section the policy implications are elaborated upon.
8.2 Summary of chapter findings
This section summarises the findings of the six research questions which were separately investigated in the empirical chapters 2 to 7.
Chapter 2 investigated the governance of diversity in Rotterdam and was included to provide an institutional context for the other empirical chapters. It examined how diversity is dealt with in urban policy and grass-roots initiatives in Rotterdam and asked what can be learnt from grass-roots initiatives for the governance of urban diversity. It found that discourses underlying urban policy on diversity in Rotterdam resound, or have sometimes even been leading those
186
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 200 at the national level, yet show vast differences with those of local initiatives at the neighbourhood level. Indicating an assimilationist discourse, policy in Rotterdam is aimed at all Rotterdammers but an extra effort is asked from residents with a migration background and those belonging to, what the municipality calls in its integration policy, ‘the slow city’ to catch up with the mainstream, which policy portrays as the existing residents of the ‘fast city’. Grass-roots initiatives within Rotterdam have adopted a more inclusive, diversity-sensitive and asset-based approach to achieve their goals. They define the diverse population not only in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status, but also in terms of e.g. their work experiences, competences and social networks. While not ignoring day-to-day challenges that particular ethnic and cultural diversity can bring (such as cultural and language barriers), the grass-roots initiatives mostly approach diversity as an opportunity, building upon diversity to improve social cohesion, social mobility and entrepreneurship, and welcoming and catering to the diverse needs and characteristics of participants.
Chapter 3 then turned to how neighbourhood diversity is dealt with by residents. It examined what attracts people to diverse, deprived urban areas and how perceptions of local diversity play a role in their choice and satisfaction with the neighbourhood. With a qualitative study among residents in highly diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands), it demonstrated that diversity plays a role in the neighbourhood satisfaction, and to a lesser extent neighbourhood choice, not only of middle classes, as the literature often suggests, or white Dutch, as public discourses in the Netherlands often suggest, but of other resident groups as well, including households in low socioeconomic positions and minority ethnic and long-term residents in diverse neighbourhoods. We found that members of minority groups, including minority ethnic groups, were attracted to diverse neighbourhoods because here they were not the only person who was ‘different’. A diverse neighbourhood allowed them to feel more ‘in place’ (Creswell 1996). Despite the negative discourses about diverse areas in public and political debates, our interviewees were generally quite satisfied with their neighbourhood. Several aspects of diversity, including a diverse facility structure, the opportunity to have new, intercultural experiences and exchanges, and a social context without dominant majority groups, played
187
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 201 a role in this respect. Also long-term residents with limited financial resources reported positive perceptions about the neighbourhood and its diversity. This is not self-evident, because they mostly came to live in a much more homogeneous neighbourhood and hence did not opt for diversity. Negative perceptions among this group were mostly expressed in nostalgic feelings about the past, such as the changing landscape of facilities that meet the diverse needs of the population.
Chapter 4 continued with an investigation of the multiple symbolic boundaries that residents of highly diverse neighbourhoods in Antwerp and Rotterdam use when addressing the diversity in their neighbourhood, but also how they re-position both individual and groups of residents towards existing boundaries and how this is related to social interaction. It found that residents distinguish social groups in highly diverse neighbourhoods, as well as that there is a diversification of group boundaries, and that group formation along clear ethnic and cultural lines has become less important (Hall 2015; Vertovec 2007; Wessendorf 2014). People draw multiple, interrelated symbolic boundaries along ethnic, class and religious lines and lines based on length of residence, to which they attach different meanings and which they sometimes used interchangeably. The chapter also showed that group boundaries are dynamic and constantly (re-)created. Finally, the chapter showed that social interaction in a context of super-diversity dynamises the process of symbolic boundary making. Discursive boundaries did not necessarily result in less social contact across these boundaries, thus illustrating that symbolic boundaries do not always lead to segregated social patterns. The findings call into question the predominant focus on fixed categories, particularly of ethnicity in the current literature on boundary making, suggesting that such studies might not grasp the full picture. The paper finished by arguing that more research is needed to get a better understanding of the individual features and contextual conditions that influence this complex relation between symbolic boundary making, everyday social interaction and super-diversity.
Chapter 5 sought to address these matters with a study on the different ways in which adults (35-65 years old) and young people (12-21 years old) in Feijenoord in Rotterdam engage with the neighbourhoods diversity and how this influences their perceptions of local diversity. It found that different uses of public and semi- public spaces are connected to more diverse social networks and more multi-
188
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 202 layered, fluid and normalised understandings of diversity among young people in Feijenoord, than among adults, for whom ethno-cultural diversity appeared to be a main social divider in these respects. This raised the question whether the differences between adults and young people can be explained by a generational or an age effect. Although only a longitudinal study can answer this, several findings of this study point towards a generational effect. First, there is little reason to expect a massive reversal in the highly diverse environment (Harris 2009; Wise 2010), and trends in immigration rates are unlikely to change drastically. Second, among each other the generation of young people will not have to deal with the language deficiencies that some of their parents experience and adults perceived as a main obstacles for the development of strong ties across ethno-cultural differences. Finally, at the start of adulthood the young people of today will have a much more diverse social network than their parents had in their time. As it is more difficult for adults than for young people to change their social contacts (Heringa 2016), there is little reason to expect that the young people will not maintain their diverse social networks. However, as educational institutions and the labour market in the Netherlands are often more segregated in terms of ethnicity and income than neighbourhoods (Boterman and Musterd 2016), moving into adulthood could also make it more difficult for the young people to maintain their diverse social networks.
Chapter 6 further zoomed into the implications of living in a highly diverse context for the composition and spatiality of locality-based weak ties. It investigated where and how residents of highly diverse neighbourhoods develop a diverse social network in their neighbourhood. It found that diverse locality- based relations mostly develop between neighbours and other acquaintances. Shared spaces with nearby neighbours and local institutions, such as community centres and schools, appeared key facilitators of diverse locality-based networks by stimulating repeated and prolonged encounters. Within the shared spaces, people had developed weak ties based on all sorts of commonalities and needs, that connect to life style (e.g. enjoying knitting), life course (e.g. having children), culture, religion, gender, or experiencing an emergency (e.g. sudden illness of a neighbour). Barriers to the development of diverse locality-based networks appear to be language barriers and conflicting norms about the use of shared spaces,
189
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 203 nearby the house, public or within local institutions. The chapter demonstrated that using fixed and broad demographic categories (e.g. ethnic and income groups) (1), and focussing on strong ties alone (2), when researching relations across differences in diverse contexts does not grasp the full story. In highly diverse contexts, people start relationships around all sorts of commonalities. These can be demographical, for instance a relationships between two women, but more often regard specific shared interests and needs, for example two people following a knitting class. Furthermore, people in locality-based relations can have multiple commonalities and differ on many other dimensions. The most diverse relations in terms of age, ethnicity, religion, gender and household type were weak ties. In line with the literature, a dimension of difference that proved very hard to ‘bridge’ in locality-based social networks in Feijenoord was income. Income groups in Feijenoord hardly appeared to meet as higher income groups are located in separate housing blocks; spend less time in the neighbourhood; and use more exclusive neighbourhood facilities than lower income groups.
Chapter 7 focussed on resident perceptions and practices of diversity in a mixed-tenure apartment complex in the newly-built neighbourhood of IJburg in Amsterdam, which was planned and designed to be a ‘neighbourhood without borders’. This chapter was included because here neighbour relations were thought to be constructed afresh rather than reflecting the existing in- and out-group configurations and territorial stigma found in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, where the empirical evidence on experiences of diversity in the previous chapters originates. The chapter showed that - despite policy intentions – the reality of living in IJburg is far removed from idealised ‘neighbourhood without borders’. Residents in the examined building perceived strong social distances between fellow residents. Groups were identified along lines of ethnicity, tenure type, household composition, and the location of apartments in the building. Negative encounters were related to problems in the design of the building and unequal power relations in terms of management of the apartment complex and the social boundaries that are drawn within the housing complex are further enhanced by segregated use of neighbourhood facilities and amenities. The study demonstrates the need for more integrated approaches in the planning for and management of mixed-tenure projects, which acknowledge the wider socio-institutional
190
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 204 residential context and facilitate more opportunities for positive encounters between different tenure groups.
8.3 The main research question answered
The main research questions of this dissertation reads:How do residents of deprived neighbourhoods face the challenges of living among diverse others? How do the residents seize opportunities for positive relations across difference? This section will provide a final answer. It will first address the most important challenges that residents of deprived areas face when it comes to local diversity. Then, it will discuss how residents deal with these challenges in their perceptions and practices. Finally, the section will discuss how residents seize opportunities for local ties across differences.
8.3.1 Challenges of living amidst diversity
A first important conclusion is that diversity was not perceived as the most important challenge for residents in the deprived study areas. Rather, the main challenges related to the disadvantaged socioeconomic position of many residents are for instance poverty, unemployment and children dropping out of school. This does not mean that diversity was never experienced as a challenge.
One aspect of diversity that residents commonly perceived to be a problem was language barriers (chapters 3-6). The research areas in Rotterdam and Antwerp house many people with a poor socioeconomic position and a migration background who do not speak the Dutch language. They settle in these parts of the cities because of the affordable housing stock and the presence of co-ethnics, family and friends. Language barriers turned out to frustrate interpersonal communication, to generate feelings of exclusion in semi-public and public spaces and to provoke feelings of frustrations between nearby neighbours, both among people who speak the Dutch language and among those who do not. Furthermore, interviewees worried that language deficiencies of parents negatively affect the socioeconomic prospects of children. In the Dutch research contexts, language courses have become increasing inaccessible to lower income
191
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 205 groups. Different from the Flemish context, in urban policy in Rotterdam the ‘integration’ of newcomers, for instance following a Dutch language course, is seen as the individual responsibility of these newcomers. Hence, language courses have become hardly affordable for low income groups. Language barriers did not come up much in the interviews in the researched estate in IJburg, Amsterdam, as hardly any newcomers to the Netherlands lived in this building when fieldwork took place.
A second major challenge of living amidst diversity was conflicting resident expectations about the uses of shared spaces due to the variety of lifestyles, cultures and household types (chapters 3-7). A common point of concern was for instance noise nuisance by nearby neighbours, caused by deviating understandings about the noise level and timing of e.g. music and children’s outdoor play. Other common concerns included unauthorised garbage disposal and young people loitering which sometimes evoked feelings of unsafety. Undesirable behaviours of fellow residents were experienced most negatively in spaces that residents could not avoid, most notably spaces in and around the home.
A third negative experience of diversity related to the high pace of change in the population of the deprived study areas in the previous two to three decades (chapters 3-6). Some long-term residents who had lived in the area before it became highly diverse expressed a nostalgia for changing social relations and connections. A sharp decline of early resident groups – identified as white Dutch – affected their sense of community (see also Blokland 2003; Davidson 2010; Feijten and van Ham 2009; Pinkster 2016; Watt 2006). Also changes in neighbourhood facilities resulting from the inflow of diverse ethnic groups did so.
8.3.2 Dealing with the challenges of diversity
The dissertation looked at both perceptions and practices to understand how residents deal with the challenges of living in a diverse context.
Perceptions Interviewees encounter diverse others on a daily basis in the spaces around their house, within public spaces in the neighbourhood, within local facilities and
192
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 206 amenities as well as in other parts of the city, and most perceived the complex diversity in their residential environment as a normal, everyday reality (see also Amin 2002; Harris 2013; Wessendorf 2014; Wise and Velayutham 2009). This for instance reflects in the fact that interviewees rarely used the words diversity or difference themselves. The interviewers tried to avoid these words in the beginning of the interviews for instance by talking about positive and negative aspects of the neighbourhood, and by asking interviewees to describe the people living in their neighbourhood instead. It was often only when the interviewer used the words diversity or difference that interviewees started to use these terms.
In their perceptions of fellow residents, people made sense of complex everyday diversity by distinguishing between social groups. These groups are defined by attributing markers (chapter 4). People used a variety of markers, including demographic markers (e.g. ethnicity, class, religion and duration of residence), to which they attach different meaning. This leads to multiple and dynamic symbolic boundaries in which the relative importance of the boundaries differs between neighbourhoods as well as between persons. In addition, the boundaries are often interrelated and sometimes used interchangeably. People continuously position and re-position other residents around these boundaries (chapter 4 and 7). This for instance became clear when people experienced that they themselves, or people they perceive as being similar to themselves, are situated on the other side of ‘the boundary’. The interviewees then used various strategies to contest existing boundaries, depending on the dimensions of diversity that they identify in their residential environment and the meaning that they address to the boundary. While some people blurred boundaries for individual residents or the collective, others only contested their own position. Nevertheless, demographic markers, particularly ethno-cultural ones, were more prominent in the narratives of adults than in those of young people (chapter 5). Young people more often used geographical markers (e.g. children of a particular area), a particular local school or subcultures (e.g. skaters and rappers) to identify social groups in their neighbourhood. For them, diversity thus appeared to be a more ordinary and practical part of their everyday lived experience (see also Cope and Kalantzis 1998; Harris 2016; Visser 2014; Wessendorf 2014) than for adults.
193
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 207 Practices Residents deal with the diversity in their neighbourhood in practice by being selective about their uses of neighbourhood spaces. Adults spend less time in public and semi-public spaces of the neighbourhood than young people (chapter 5), which entails that they are less exposed to diverse others. Young people spend more time in public spaces such as parks and playgrounds than adults. Similarly, adults with a relatively high socioeconomic position spend less time in shared neighbourhood spaces than residents with a lower socioeconomic position (see also Van Kempen and Wissink 2014). The former choose to use spaces that are less accessible to lower income groups, such as commercial children’s playing facilities and coffee bars (chapter 5). In these spaces they mostly meet other people with a high socioeconomic position, rather than people with a low socioeconomic position. In the neighbourhood spaces in which it is impossible to avoid diverse others, residents ought to negotiate their different expectations. When resident groups do not have equal decision-making power, negotiations can result in tensions or even overt conflicts, as was the case in the researched mixed-tenure estate in IJburg. By Dutch law the owner occupiers here have more decision- making power over shared residential spaces than the renters (chapter 7).
8.3.3 Opportunities for positive relations across differences
Diversity was not only perceived as a challenge. In the highly diverse research areas in Rotterdam and Antwerp, many residents seized the opportunity to develop positive relations across differences. Relations across differences started off around specific commonalities: shared demographic features (e.g. a shared ethnic, religious, educational and/or occupational background, age, household type and/or gender), shared interests (e.g. a passion for knitting) or shared needs (e.g. regularly being in need of a baby sitter) (chapter 6). Among adults, positive relations across differences mostly involved weak ties of neighbours and acquaintances, while young people more often considered their diverse ties friendships (chapter 5).
Neighbourhood spaces that facilitate recurrent encounters between people across differences offered most opportunities for positive relations across difference. For
194
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 208 adults, shared spaces with neighbours around the house and local institutions and activity spaces such as community centres and schools appeared key facilitators of diverse ties (chapter 5 and 6). Young people repeatedly met and developed friendships with diverse others in parks, plaza’s and playgrounds as well as neighbourhood-based amenities including schools and sports clubs.
Although residents seized the opportunity to develop relations across all sorts of differences, socioeconomic lines appeared to be hard to bridge. In Feijenoord, relations between different income groups – weak and strong - were rare. This can be explained by the divergent activity patterns of income groups. Residents with a high socioeconomic position spend less time in the neighbourhood and use more exclusive social spaces in the neighbourhood, than those with a low socioeconomic position. Two other factors that contribute to the socioeconomically segregated networks are the spatial concentration of households with a relatively high socioeconomic position in the area’s closest to the city centre and the absence of mixed-tenure housing blocks and streets in the area. In Feijenoord people with a high and low socioeconomic position are rarely next-door neighbours. Yet, ‘no mating without meeting’ does not imply that meeting always leads to mating. Chapter 7 demonstrated that encouraging positive experiences of and relationships across differences entails much more than sharing a neighbourhood space. In fact, in the researched estate in IJburg, Amsterdam, a mismatch between resident expectations of and observed practices of fellow residents in shared spaces was found to amplify social distance between resident groups. This was encouraged by a building design that did not adequately safeguard privacy in a context of complex diversity and that did not reflect the needs of diverse groups; misleading information by project managers beforehand about the social structure of the project; slow and inadequate responses to social and maintenance problems in the development by estate managers; and the absence of an inclusive facility structure at the neighbourhood level.
8.4 Theoretical implications and reflections
The dissertation aimed to contribute to the academic literature on the challenges and opportunities for social cohesion in diverse, deprived neighbourhoods by
195
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 209 addressing four research gaps. First, it used a broad conceptualisation of urban diversity, rather than focussing on socioeconomic and ethnic diversity alone. Second, it looked at strong and weak ties, rather than at strong ties alone. Third, it explored the meaning of diversity for the perceptions and practices of multiple resident groups, including those with a low socioeconomic position, rather than focussing on middle class households. Finally, it sought to provide insight in the spatiality of locality-based social relations. This section will discuss the yields and limitations of this approach and discuss directions for future research.
8.4.1 Rethinking conceptualisations of urban diversity
The choice to not focus on specific dimensions of diversity such as ethnic and income diversity a priori, but to include multiple dimensions of difference that are meaningful to the research population, provided a comprehensive understanding of social cohesion in deprived areas. It demonstrated that in highly diverse contexts residents build relationships around many sorts of commonalities, which can be demographical (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity) but can also regard specificinterests or needs. Furthermore, the approach showed that the relationships develop around a certain commonality but always bridges other dimensions of difference including age, gender, ethnic, cultural, religious, household type, educational and occupational differences. According to these insights, social cohesion levels in the diverse, deprived areas are not low, as studies with a narrow conceptualisation of diversity might conclude.
The study demonstrated that research on social relations and experiences in diverse contexts can be enhanced by conceptualising diversity more comprehensively and focusing on resident perspectives of diversity rather than using pre-defined categories of differences; and by being more specific about the dimension of difference under investigation when drawing conclusions about social cohesion.
The implication of conceptual definitions for research outcomes also became apparent in the way in which this study approached ethnic diversity. The research outcomes in Rotterdam and Antwerp on ethnic diversity in neighbourhood- based social networks were not in line with the literature. This can be explained by differences in definitions of ethnic diversity and social networks. It has long
196
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 210 been a tradition in Dutch/Flemish studies on social cohesion across ethnic groups in deprived areas to identify white Dutch/Flemish people as one category and to lump minority ethnic groups into one or two other categories (for instance western and non-western minority ethnic groups). In this dissertation, a plural definition of ethnic diversity was used in which minority ethnic people were not lumped together. This led to the finding that locality based social networks were generally diverse. Researched this way, the locality-based social networks of interviewees with a Dutch/Flemish background even appeared to be slightly less diverse than those of other interviewees.
Using white Dutch/Flemish people as a standard category against which other ethnic groups are measured strongly negates the existing ethnic diversity in social networks. In order to grasp the full picture of social cohesion across ethnic groups in deprived contexts, research needs to treat all ethnic groups as equals.
8.4.2 The importance of weak ties for social cohesion in deprived areas
Close ties of family and friends - Grannovetter’s (1973) strong ties - have received most attention in the literature on social networks in diverse, deprived contexts (Kleinhans 2005), particular in quantitative approaches. This study chose to not focus on strong ties a priori, but to look at other types of bonds as well, including ties with neighbours, acquaintances and colleagues, when examining the locality- based ties of residents in deprived contexts. The approach demonstrated that these ties – which are weaker in strength than ties between close family and friends - provide more opportunities for relationships across difference than stronger ties (see also Mollenhorst et al. 2008). Fieldwork in Feijenoord indicates that diverse weak ties provide all sorts of support that close friends and family could sometimes not provide (enough) including companionship, information and advice and practical support (see also Tersteeg et al. 2015). Furthermore, Peterson (2016) demonstrated that the diverse weak ties in Feijenoord contribute to a sense of belonging, acceptance of differences and public familiarity. Finally, interviewees in Feijenoord exchanged information about work and educational opportunities through locality-based weak ties, indicating that the weak ties offer opportunities for social mobility as well.
197
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 211 Research on social cohesion in diverse contexts can benefit greatly from focussing more on weak ties (Kleinhans 2005). Furthermore, our fieldwork definitely invites to explore the meaning of weak ties for the social mobility of residents in diverse, deprived contexts. We did not address the topic of social mobility because it goes beyond the focus of this dissertation. Two other questions that the dissertation was not able to answer are whether and under which conditions diverse weak ties can develop into strong ties over time, and whether and which conditions enable young people to maintain the diversity in their networks of friends when they become adults. Longitudinal research is required to address these crucial questions.
8.4.3 Diversity research: beyond the middle classes
Another insight that the dissertation provided is that a diverse residential environment does not only play a role in neighbourhood perceptions, practices and choices of (white) middle class residents. The focus on (white) middle classes in studies on neighbourhood diversity can be traced back to the work of Florida (2003; 2005) who argued that ‘the creative class’ – who are in effect middle classes – prefer to live in diverse urban settings in terms of the ethnicity, race and sexual identity of residents. He argued that urban policy should focus on attracting the creative class as they contribute to open and tolerant neighbourhoods. Many scholars have contested this theory e.g. by demonstrating that middle classes might appreciate diversity but hardly engage with diverse others in their neighbourhoods (Boterman 2013; Jackson and Benson 2014; Jackson and Butler 2015; Neal and Vincent 2013; Pinkster 2014; Schuermans et al. 2015; Tissot 2014). Nevertheless, in doing so, most of these studies have focussed on middle class households as well.
The dominant focus on (white) middle classes has nourished the perception that (white) middle classes choose to live in a diverse area while households with a lower socioeconomic position and minority ethnic groups are ‘stuck’ in diversity, because of the affordable housing stock in diverse areas (e.g. Wilson 1987) or because of the presence of co-ethnics (e.g. Wilson and Portes 1980). Nevertheless, the present study has demonstrated that diversity is at least as important for residents
198
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 212 with a low socioeconomic position and minority background (e.g. in terms of ethnicity or household type). Although their choices are (sometimes very much) constrained by their disadvantaged socioeconomic position, in the Dutch/Belgian research contexts, residents with a low socioeconomic position experience and demonstrate agency and choice when it comes to their residential environment. Most residents in the research areas in Rotterdam and Antwerp were satisfied with their neighbourhood, did not want to move away or had even intentionally moved back to their neighbourhood (chapter 3). Neighbourhood satisfaction was shaped by both positive and negative perceptions of and experiences with diversity. Positive experiences were for instance that minorities (e.g. ethnic or in terms of household type) feel less ‘out of place’ in areas where they are not the only minority and that diverse urban area offer specialised facilities and amenities that meet needs of low income groups and minority lifestyles (see also Logan, Zhang and Alba 2002). Also the study showed that living in a diverse neighbourhood offered opportunities for developing weak ties.
To generate a better understanding of what it means to live in a diverse neighbourhood, this dissertation invites more research on lower income groups and a variety of minorities. It also invites research to focus on residents who moved away from diverse, deprived areas to areas that are less diverse – both with high and low incomes. In Rotterdam and to a lesser extent also in Antwerp, low income groups still have the opportunity to move to less diverse neighbourhoods. We did not interview out-movers in this research. Studying this group will generate a better picture of the challenges and opportunities of living in a diverse area.
8.4.4 Deconstructing the ‘black box’ of neighbourhood
The literature on neighbourhood effects on social cohesion mostly builds on standardised definitions of the neighbourhood (Galster and Hedman 2013; Van Ham et al. 2012; Sharkey and Faber 2014). These provide insight in the extent to which personal networks are local, but not in the spatiality of neighbourhood- based relations or in how people define their neighbourhood (Cresswell 2014).
This dissertation sought to provide insight by looking at resident perceptions and practices with local diversity in conjunction with activity patterns (chapters
199
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 213 5-7). This approach appeared to be fruitful for understanding the observed income segregation in the social networks of interviewees in Feijenoord. Due to deviating activity patterns of income groups and the spatial concentration of higher income groups in the northern parts of the research area of Feijenoord, opportunities for income groups to get to know one another are scarce. Second, studying social relations and activity patterns in conjunction demonstrated that shared spaces with neighbours around the house and local institutions such as schools, community centres and sports activity spaces are important facilitators of diverse weak ties. Finally, looking at activity patterns helped to understand observed differences in the perceptions of diversity and social relations of young people and adults (chapter 5). In Feijenoord, young people appeared to be more exposed to complex diversity than adults, which we suggested explains their more normalised, positive perceptions of diversity and more diverse local networks of friends compared to perceptions and practices of adults. Studying activity patterns and the use of neighbourhood spaces is thus a recommended research approach for understanding how residents in diverse contexts perceive differences and maintain local relations. Another recommendation for future research is the use of self-defined neighbourhoods. In this study interviewees were asked to use their own definition of the neighbourhood. Most interviewees defined their neighbourhood as the geographical spaces around their house (varying from about 100 meter to 1,5 km) in which they conduct daily activities. Asking residents to define their neighbourhood thus provided important information about the local spaces that they use and hence, who they see and meet.
8.5 Policy implications
Current political debates about diversity in the Netherlands and Flanders are still mostly concerned with the question of how much diversity to accept, whereas the reality is that cities are becoming irreversibly more diverse, not only in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status of people, but also in terms of for example their identities, activity patterns, lifestyles and household types (Vertovec 2007; Tasan-Kok et al. 2013). Rather than questioning whether or not to accept diversity, the outcomes of this study invite policy makers to focus on questions of how to accommodate an increasingly diverse urban population. The following
200
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 214 suggestions provide direction.
8.5.1 Towards a comprehensive rhetoric of urban diversity
Focussing on traditional ethnic and socioeconomic categories, problematising cultural diversity and stressing cultural assimilation do not do justice to the emergent highly diverse population of cities. By mostly focusing on the challenges that urban diversity brings, such an approach is not open to the opportunities that diversity offers for social cohesion. Instead, it contributes to a negative reputation of diverse neighbourhoods. To seize the opportunities of urban diversity, policy makers, other civil servants and urban professionals at all scales should fully embrace urban diversity. In this sense, much can be learnt from the inclusive, open-ended and opportunity-driven approaches of grass-roots initiatives studied in the highly diverse context of Feijenoord in Rotterdam. The grass-roots initiatives have an eye for the multiplicity of skills, knowledge’s, cultures, information and support networks that the local diversity of people brings and see this as a quality. The initiatives bring together diverse people to encourage social cohesion, social mobility and entrepreneurship (see also chapter 2; Tersteeg et al. 2014; Tasan-Kok et al. 2017). Next to this alternative rhetoric of diversity, the grass-roots initiatives offer a rich local network and detailed knowledge about the interests, needs and problems among local residents which provide crucial information when developing and realising urban policy.
8.5.2 Facilitating spaces for exchanges across differences
Research in Feijenoord in Rotterdam refuted the dominant perception in policy and some academic schools of thoughts that social cohesion levels in diverse, deprived areas are low. It did so by showing that through locality-based weak ties of neighbours and other local acquaintances residents in Feijenoord are connected on many different dimensions (e.g. in terms of ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, education, occupation, household type). The diverse weak ties offer residents information, companionship and social and practical support. Particularly people who are relatively dependent on the neighbourhood for their daily activities and social contacts (mostly people with a low socioeconomic position, households
201
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 215 with young children and elderly people), profit from these weak ties. Key facilitators of diverse weak ties appear to be shared spaces with neighbours and local facilities and amenities in which people with diverse backgrounds meet recurrently and for sufficient time to get to know one another, such as schools, community centres and activity spaces of sports clubs. Nevertheless, over the last decade, the municipal budgets on neighbourhood-based facilities and services for low income groups, particularly community centres but also language courses for newcomers, have undergone major cuts. At the same time city governments have increased their budgets for creating attractive cities and neighbourhoods for middle class households. The research in this dissertation captured this shift in Rotterdam (chapter 2). Budget cuts on local spaces that bring together people with diverse backgrounds counteract social cohesion. A relatively low-cost way to maintain and facilitate social cohesion is to support public and semi-public neighbourhood spaces in which diverse groups of residents meet. Another way to facilitate social interaction in shared spaces is by offering Dutch language courses free of charge. Otherwise especially low-income immigrants will have fewer opportunities to follow such a course. It is not only political discourses that emphasise that people living in Dutch cities should be able to speak the Dutch language. Interviewees indicated this as well. Not being able to speak the Dutch language appears to be a key barrier to positive perceptions of diverse local others and local social interactions and relations across differences.
8.5.3 Adjusting expectations of the middle classes
Municipalities and housing corporations have made concerted efforts to attract middle class residents to deprived urban neighbourhoods, amongst others because their presence is thought to help residents with a lower socioeconomic position here. Yet, this dissertation reconfirms that income groups in mixed income settings see each other in local public spaces but hardly meet, let alone develop positive relations (Hochstenbach 2017; Miltenburg 2017). This is because they use different neighbourhood spaces. Higher income groups use facilities and service that are hardly accessible to lower income groups and spend less time in the neighbourhood (except for families with young children). In this sense, one might argue that it is higher income groups who participate poorly in everyday
202
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 216 neighbourhood life in diverse, deprived neighbourhoods, rather than lower income groups, which urban policy often suggests. To counteract segregated social networks along lines of income, one way forward is to facilitate inclusive meeting spaces. The dissertation indicates that local schools, community centers and sports clubs are already key facilitators of social relations between diverse people, albeit mostly with a low income. It is in these spaces that policy makers should invest. If local schools, sports clubs and other community services and spaces that are accessible to low income groups offer a higher quality of products and services, this will also seduce higher income groups to use them.
8.5.4 Inclusive management practices
Four examples of spatial management practices that give precedence to the lifestyles of relatively privileged resident groups, (white) middle class households:
• During a walk in the research area in Rotterdam, a civil servant of the Municipality of Rotterdam told the author that a particular part of the area was ‘getting better’. When asked what he meant by ‘better’, he explained that more middle class residents were moving in and there was an increase in facilities that cater to them (such as organic shops and coffee bars). • In another part of the research area a civil servant, a shopping street manager, explained that he was busy with attracting more ‘mainstream’ shops to a shopping street with many shops that cater to low income groups and migrants. • In IJburg in Amsterdam, owner-occupiers occupying public spaces in front of their houses with flowers, bikes and benches are accepted by the Municipality of Amsterdam, housing corporations and other owner-occupiers, however the same parties have been very successful in preventing minority ethnic residents (owner-occupiers and renters) from attaching an antenna dish to the private space of their house. • In the researched estate in IJburg owner-occupiers and the housing corporation have implemented logs in the shared yard to prevent the children of renters from playing here.
203
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 217 The dissertation demonstrates that in highly diverse contexts it is very important that the shared spaces – public, semi-public or private - are managed in an inclusive way. As the case study in IJburg clearly showed, positive experiences of differences cannot develop when resident groups are not on an equal footing. Highly diverse contexts require inclusive management practices. That is, practices that acknowledge, listen to and accommodate as much as possible the multiplicity of needs of residents, also those of minorities and low income groups. Neighbourhood professionals (such as civil servants and professionals of housing corporations) can only do this when they move beyond the privileged treatment of (white) middle class households. As Tersteeg, Bolt and Van Kempen (2015, p. 60) have argued: maintaining that (white) middle-class neighbourhoods ‘…are the ideal or the norm strongly denies that people with other lifestyles and opportunities are also part of [and important to] a city. It is a discourse that strongly negates the diversity of city life’.
References
Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34 (6), pp. 959–980. Askins, K. (2015). Being together: everyday geographies and the quiet politics of belonging. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14 (2), pp. 470–478. Blokland, T. (2003), Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press. Blommaert, J. (2013), Citizenship, language and superdiversity: Towards complexity. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 12 (3), pp. 193–196. Boterman, W.R. (2013), Dealing with diversity: Middle-class family households and the issue of black and white schools in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 50 (6), pp. 1113–1147. Boterman, W.R. and S. Musterd (2016), Cocooning urban life: Exposure to diversity in neighbourhoods, workplaces and transport. Cities, 59, pp. 139–147 Cope, B. and M. Kalantzis (1998), Multicultural education: Transforming the mainstream. In: S. May (ed.), Critical multiculturalism. Rethinking multicultural and anti-racist education. London: Falmer Press, pp. 245-274. Cresswell, T. (1996), In place–out of place: geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cresswell, T. (2014), Place: An introduction. Malden MA: Blackwell. Crul, M. (2016), Super-diversity vs. assimilation: how complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42 (1), pp. 54-68. Davidson, M. (2010), Love thy neighbour? Interpreting social mixing in London’s gentrification
204
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 218 frontiers. Environment and Planning A, 42 (3), pp. 524–544. Feijten, P. and M. van Ham (2009), Neighbourhood change… Reason to Leave?. Urban Studies, 46 (10), pp. 2103–2122. Florida, R. (2003), Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2 (3), pp. 3–19. Florida, R. (2005), Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge. Galster, G. and L. Hedman (2013), Measuring neighbourhood effects non-experimentally: How much do alternative methods matter?. Housing Studies, 28 (3), pp. 473–498. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360– 1480. Hall, S. (2015), Super-diverse street: A “trans-ethnography” across migrant localities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38 (1), pp. 22–37. Harris, A. (2009), Shifting the boundaries of cultural spaces: Young people and everyday multiculturalism. Social Identities, 15 (2), pp. 187-205. Harris, A. (2013), Young people and everyday multiculturalism. New York: Routledge. Harris, A. (2016), Youth socialites in Australia’s multiculture. Urban studies, DOI: 10.1177/0042098016680310 [published online before printing]. Heringa, A.M. (2016), Pathways in diversity: Inter-ethnic contacts and experiences and the role of the neighbourhood from a situational, activity-based approach. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Hochstenbach, C. (2017), Inequality in the gentrifying European city. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Hoekstra, M. (2017), Governing diversity, experiencing difference: The politics of belonging in ethnically diverse places. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Jackson, E. and M. Benson (2014), Neither ‘deepest, darkest peckham’ nor ‘run-of-the-mill’ east Dulwich: The middle classes and their ‘others’ in an inner-London neighbourhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1195–1210. Jackson, E. and T. Butler (2015), Revisiting ‘social tectonics’: The middle classes and social mix in gentrifying neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 52 (13), pp. 2349-2365. Kleinhans, R.J. (2005), Sociale implicaties van herstructurering en herhuisvesting [Social implications of urban restructuring and relocation]. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Logan J., W. Zhang and R. Alba (2002), Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67, pp. 299–322. Mollenhorst, G., B. Volker and H. Flap (2008), Social Contexts and Personal Relationships: The Effect of Meeting Opportunities on Similarity for Relationships of Different Strength.Social Networks, 30 (1), pp. 60–68. Miltenburg, E.M. (2017). A different place to different people: Conditional neighbourhood effects on residents’ socio-economic status. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Neal, S. and C. Vincent (2013), Multiculture, middle class competencies and friendship practices in super-diverse geographies. Social and Cultural Geography, 14 (8), pp. 909-929. Peterson, M. (2016), Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: How important are encounters in semi-public spaces?. Social and Cultural Geography, pp. 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667 [published online before printing].
205
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 219 Pinkster, F.M. (2014), I just live here: Everyday practices of disaffiliation of middle class households in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 51 (4), pp. 810–826. Pinkster, F.M. (2016), Narratives of neighbourhood change and loss of belonging in an urban garden village. Social and Cultural Geography, 17 (7), pp. 871-891. Scholten, P.W.A. and I. Van Breugel (2017), Mainstreaming in response to superdiversity? The governance of migration-related diversity in France, the UK and the Netherlands. Policy and Society, DOI: 10.1332/030557317X14849132401769 [published online before printing]. Schuermans, N., B. Meeus and P. de Decker (2015), Geographies of whiteness and wealth: White, middle class discourses on segregation and social mix in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37 (4), pp. 1-18. Sharkey, P. and J. Faber (2014), Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from the Dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, pp. 559–579. Tasan-kok, T., R. van Kempen, M. Raco and G. Bolt (2013), Towards hyper-diversified European cities. A critical literature review, Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tasan-kok, T., G.S. Bolt, L. Plüss and W. Schenkel (2017), A Handbook for Governing Hyper-diverse Cities. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences. Tersteeg, A.K., G.S. Bolt and R. van Kempen (2014), Governance arrangements and initiatives in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Tersteeg, A.K., R. van Kempen and G.S. Bolt (2015), Fieldwork inhabitants. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Tissot, S. (2014), Loving diversity/controlling diversity: Exploring the ambivalent mobilization of upper-middle-class gentrifiers, South End, Boston.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38 (4), pp. 1181–1194. Van Ham, M., D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson and D. Maclennan (2012), Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. Van Kempen, R. and B. Wissink (2014), Between places and flows: Towards a new agenda for neighbourhood research in an age of mobility. Geografiska Annaler B, 96 (2), pp. 95-108. Vertovec, S. (2007), Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), pp. 1024- 1054. Vertovec, S. and S. Wessendorf (2010), The Multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. Abingdon: Routledge. Watt, P. (2006), Respectability, roughness and ‘race’: Neighbourhood place images and the making of working‐class social distinctions in London. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (4), pp. 776-797. Wessendorf, S. (2014) Commonplace diversity: Social relations in a super-diverse context. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. Wessendorf, S. (2016), Settling in a super-diverse context: Recent migrants’ experiences of conviviality. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37 (5), pp. 449-463. Wise, A. (2010), Sensuous multiculturalism: Emotional landscapes of inter-ethnic living in Australian suburbia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 96 (6), pp. 917-937. Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (2009), Everyday multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
206
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 220 Wise A. and S. Velayutham (2014), Conviviality in Everyday Multiculturalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17 (4), pp. 406–430. Wilson, W.J. (1987), The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, K. and A. Portes (1980), Immigrant enclaves: An analysis of the labor market experiences of Cubans in Miami. American Journal of Sociology, 86, pp. 295–319. Ye, J. (2016), The ambivalence of familiarity: Understanding breathable diversity through fleeting encounters in Singapore’s Jurong West. Area, 48 (1), 77–83.
207
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 221 208
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 222 NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING
209
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 223 Probleemstelling
Beleidsmakers maken zich zorgen over een vermeend gebrek aan sociale cohesie in achterstandswijken. Dit gebrek zou veroorzaakt worden door de ruimtelijke concentratie van kansarme groepen en etnische minderheden. Een veel voorkomende beleidsinterventie voor achterstandsbuurten is het differentiëren van de woningvoorraad zodat meer huishoudens met een hogere sociaaleconomische status zich in deze wijken vestigen. In de praktijk zijn deze huishoudens vaak witte Nederlanders. Wetenschappelijke onderzoeken wijzen uit dat deze interventie echter niet leidt tot meer sociale cohesie in achterstandsbuurten: afgaande op hun sociale netwerken zouden lagere en hogere inkomensgroepen en etnische groepen vaak langs elkaar heen leven.
Recent wetenschappelijk onderzoek over superdiversiteit en hyperdiversiteit doet nochtans vermoeden dat veel van deze onderzoeken geen volledig beeld schetsen van sociale cohesie. De stedelijke bevolking is diverser dan ooit, niet alleen als het gaat om etniciteit en klasse, maar ook op het vlak van activiteitenpatronen, huishoudtypen, culturen, leefstijlen en identiteiten. Ook binnen demografische groepen is er steeds meer diversiteit en de verwachting is dat deze trend zal doorzetten. Dit heeft niet alleen belangrijke consequenties voor beleid - hoe maak je beleid wanneer traditionele demografische kenmerken als leeftijd, inkomen en etniciteit niet meer opgaan? - maar ook voor sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek, met name onderzoek naar percepties en relaties. Hoe bepaal je bijvoorbeeld je onderzoekspopulatie en je sociale groepsgrenzen? Op welke variabelen of ‘dimensies van diversiteit’ richt je je? Onderzoek naar de betekenis van complexe stedelijke diversiteit voor vraagstukken over sociale cohesie staat nog in de kinderschoenen. Er is nog veel onbekend over hoe mensen in zeer diverse buurten tegen diversiteit aankijken en hoe zij ermee omgaan.
Onderzoeksdoel
In dit proefschrift wordt onderzocht hoe bewoners van achterstandsbuurten omgaan met complexe sociale diversiteit in de woonomgeving. De hoofdvraag luidt: Hoe gaan bewoners in achterstandsbuurten om met de uitdagingen van het wonen in een zeer diverse woonomgeving? Hoe grijpen zij de kans om positieve
210
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 224 relaties te ontplooien met buurtgenoten die ‘anders’ zijn dan zij? Het doel van het onderzoek is om inzicht te verschaffen in uitdagingen en kansen voor sociale cohesie in achterstandsbuurten voor wetenschap en beleid. Er wordt ingespeeld op vier lacunes in de wetenschappelijke literatuur. Ten eerste wordt een brede definitie van stedelijke diversiteit gehanteerd, in plaats van de nadruk te leggen op sociaaleconomische en etnische diversiteit alleen. Ten tweede kijkt het onderzoek niet alleen naar sterke sociale banden tussen familie en vrienden, maar ook naar zwakke banden tussen buren en andere kennissen in de buurt. Ten derde wordt de betekenisgeving van diversiteit onderzocht, niet alleen onder middenklasse huishoudens, maar ook onder andere bewonersgroepen waaronder huishoudens met een lage sociaaleconomische positie. Tenslotte tracht het onderzoek inzicht te verschaffen in de ruimtelijke verdeling en betekenis van buurtgebonden sociale relaties.
Onderzoeksopzet
Om de hoofdvraag te beantwoorden zijn er zes deelonderzoeken gedaan. Elk deelonderzoek correspondeert met één empirisch hoofdstuk. De onderzoeksmethoden zijn kwalitatief van aard: er wordt gebruik gemaakt van diepte-interviews (hoofdstuk 2-7); observaties (hoofdstuk 2-7); ronde tafel gesprekken met beleidsmakers, actoren uit het maatschappelijk middenveld, maatschappelijke ondernemers, lokale informanten en andere experts (hoofdstuk 2-7); discourse analyse van beleidsdocumenten (hoofdstuk 2); en ‘narrative mapping’ (hoofdstuk 7). Het onderzoek is uitgevoerd in Rotterdam, Antwerpen en Amsterdam.
Bevindingen
Hoofdstuk 2 schetst de institutionele context van de andere empirische hoofdstukken. Er wordt onderzocht hoe er op verschillende bestuurlijke schaalniveaus in Rotterdam aandacht wordt gegeven aan stedelijke diversiteit. Door middel van beleidsanalyses en interviews met gemeentelijke en niet- gemeentelijke beleidsactoren, worden stedelijk beleid en de benadering van lokale initiatieven in diverse buurten met elkaar vergeleken. Terwijl grootstedelijke
211
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 225 gemeenten sociale verschillen vaak pragmatischer, positiever en meer inclusief benaderen dan nationale overheden, blijkt dit in Rotterdam niet het geval. In Rotterdam komt de benadering van diversiteit op stadsniveau overeen met of is soms zelfs toonaangevend voor landelijk beleid. Een assimilationistische ondertoon kenmerkt hier het stedelijke beleid ten aanzien van diversiteit. Het beleid zegt zich te richten op alle Rotterdammers, maar mensen met een migratieachtergrond en mensen uit de zogeheten ‘langzame stad’ worden gevraagd zich te conformeren aan de mainstream, mensen zonder migratieachtergrond en onderdeel van ‘de snelle stad’. De benadering van diversiteit op stadsniveau staat in schril contrast met de benadering van initiatieven op buurtniveau. Hoewel diversiteit ook voor uitdagingen zorgt bij buurtgebonden initiatieven (zoals culturele barrières en taalbarrières), zien deze initiatieven diversiteit vaker als maatschappelijke en economische kans. Daarnaast hanteren lokale initiatieven een meer inclusieve benadering van diversiteit. Het hoofdstuk concludeert dat de benadering van stedelijke diversiteit op buurtniveau in Rotterdam relevante aanknopingspunten biedt voor de omgang met diversiteit op hogere institutionele schaalniveaus, zoals in stedelijk beleid.
De volgende hoofdstukken richten zich op het perspectief van bewoners in diverse buurten. In hoofdstuk 3 wordt er op basis van kwalitatief onderzoek in Antwerpse en Rotterdamse achterstandsbuurten onderzocht waarom mensen in deze diverse buurten gaan wonen en hoe percepties van diversiteit een rol spelen in de buurtkeuze en tevredenheid met de buurt. In de wetenschap en in publieke debatten is het beeld ontstaan dat de witte middenklasse kiest om te wonen in een diverse buurt, terwijl lagere klassen en etnische minderheden ‘gevangen zitten’ in diverse arme buurten vanwege de goedkope woningvoorraad. Dit beeld wordt in dit hoofdstuk weerlegd. In de onderzochte Antwerpse en Rotterdamse buurten blijkt diversiteit een rol te spelen in de tevredenheid met de buurt en in mindere mate ook in de buurtkeuze, niet alleen van middenklassen, maar ook van andere bewonersgroepen waaronder huishoudens met een lagere sociaaleconomische positie, etnische minderheden en langgevestigde bewoners. Minderheden, bijvoorbeeld op basis van hun etnische achtergrond of huishoudsamenstelling, geven aan zich op hun plek te voelen in een diverse buurt omdat zij hier niet de enige zijn die ‘anders’ zijn. Ondanks de negatieve beeldvorming van diverse, arme
212
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 226 buurten in publieke en politieke debatten, zijn geïnterviewden over het algemeen erg tevreden met hun buurt. Verschillende aspecten van diversiteit spelen hierin een rol.
Hoofdstuk 4 onderzoekt hoe bewoners in zeer diverse buurten sociale groepen onderscheiden. Hierbij wordt gebruik gemaakt van het concept ‘symbolic boundary making’. Op basis van diepte-interviews met bewoners in diverse Antwerpse en Rotterdamse achterstandsbuurten wordt onderzocht hoe bewoners symbolische grenzen trekken en onderscheiden, en hoe zij deze grenzen vervolgens in de praktijk brengen in dagelijkse interacties in hun buurt. Het hoofdstuk laat zien dat bewoners in zeer diverse buurten nog steeds sociale groepen onderscheiden. Bewoners trekken symbolische grenzen langs diverse scheidslijnen, onder meer gebaseerd op etniciteit, klasse, religie en woonduur. Deze scheidslijnen blijken vaak samen te hangen of zelfs te overlappen. Bij het vaststellen van wie bij welke groep hoort, verleggen bewoners symbolische grenzen tussen groepen. Het hoofdstuk laat zien dat groepsgrenzen niet statisch zijn, maar continu (opnieuw) worden gemaakt. Daarnaast laat het hoofdstuk zien dat symbolische grenzen niet hoeven te leiden tot minder sociaal contact met mensen uit een ‘andere’ groep. Bewoners kunnen bijvoorbeeld sterk negatieve percepties hebben over een groep als geheel maar prettige contacten onderhouden met individuele buurtgenoten die behoren tot deze groep. Symbolische groepsgrenzen hebben dus niet noodzakelijk gesegregeerde sociale contacten tot gevolg. De resultaten roepen op om in onderzoek naar symbolische groepsgrenzen en sociale interacties scheidslijnen niet als statisch te beschouwen en minder de nadruk te leggen op etnische scheidslijnen.
Hoofdstuk 5 onderzoekt de relatie tussen hoe bewoners hun buurt dagelijks gebruiken, wie zij in hun buurt ontmoeten en hoe zij tegen diversiteit in de buurt aankijken. Daartoe zijn er diepte-interviews met volwassenen (35-65 jaar) en jongeren (12-21 jaar) in divers, arm Feijenoord in Rotterdam gehouden. De groepen worden met elkaar vergeleken. Het blijkt dat volwassen en jongeren de ruimten in hun buurt op een andere manier gebruiken. Jongeren brengen onder andere meer tijd door in publieke ruimten. Dit heeft invloed op wie ze in de buurt ontmoeten, hun buurtgebonden sociale netwerken en hun percepties van andere mensen in hun buurt. De sociale netwerken van de geïnterviewde jongeren zijn
213
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 227 meer divers, en de jongeren hebben meer gelaagde, fluïde en genormaliseerde percepties van diversiteit in hun buurt dan de volwassenen. Bij de volwassenen bleek etnisch-culturele diversiteit een belangrijkere scheidslijn in de sociale netwerken en in percepties dan bij jongeren. De bevindingen zouden kunnen betekenen dat mensen die opgroeien te midden van complexe diversiteit een minder etnisch-gecentreerde en meer tolerante relatie hebben met diversiteit, dan mensen die in een meer homogene buurt zijn opgegroeid. De bevindingen zouden echter ook kunnen worden veroorzaakt door leeftijdsverschillen. Alleen een longitudinaal onderzoek kan vaststellen welke het geval is. Toch wijzen een aantal bevindingen op een generatie effect. Ten eerste zijn de jongeren in een veel diversere omgeving opgegroeid dan de geïnterviewde volwassenen. De verwachting is dat deze trend door zal zetten. Ten tweede hebben de geïnterviewde jongeren anders dan de generatie van hun ouders onderling minder last van taalbarrières. De volwassenen ervaren deze barrières wel. Tenslotte hebben de jongeren bij aanvang van volwassenheid een diverser sociaal netwerk dan de volwassenen hadden in die tijd.
Hoofdstuk 6 gaat over de condities waaronder bewoners in diverse buurten sociale banden aangaan met buurtgenoten die ‘anders’ zijn dan zij. Er wordt onderzocht hoe en waar in de buurt diverse sociale netwerken ontstaan. Diepte-interviews met bewoners in Feijenoord, Rotterdam leren dat diverse sociale netwerken vooral ontstaan tussen buren en andere lokale kennissen, Granovetter’s (1973) ‘zwakke’ sociale banden. Gedeelde ruimten met buren en lokale instituties zoals buurthuizen en scholen blijken belangrijke ontmoetingsplekken voor bewoners met verschillende achtergronden omdat ze langdurige en herhaaldelijke contacten faciliteren. De banden die in deze ruimten ontstaan, ontwikkelen zich rondom een gemeenschappelijke eigenschap, interesse of behoefte. Demografische eigenschappen - zoals leeftijdgenoten zijn of allebei kinderen hebben - werken verbindend. Vaak blijken relaties ook te ontstaan rondom specifieke behoeften en interesses, zoals buurtgenoten die gezamenlijk een breicursus volgen, of in geval van nood, bijvoorbeeld een inbraak of een buurman die plotselinge ziek wordt. Factoren die diverse zwakke banden juist vaak ontmoedigen zijn taalbarrières en botsende normen over het gebruik van gedeelde ruimten (publiek, semipubliek en privé). Ook inkomensverschillen lijken moeilijk te overbruggen.
214
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 228 Inkomensgroepen in Feijenoord blijken elkaar nauwelijks te ontmoeten: hogere inkomensgroepen wonen vaak in aparte woonblokken, aan de noordkant van de buurt; ze brengen minder tijd door in hun buurt; en ze maken meer gebruik van exclusieve buurtvoorzieningen. Geconcludeerd wordt dat onderzoek naar diversiteit in buurtgebonden sociale netwerken dat zich richt op één of enkele dimensies van diversiteit (zoals etnische diversiteit) en dat alleen kijkt naar sterke banden van familie en vrienden, een onvolledig, beeld geeft van sociale samenhang op buurtniveau.
Er wordt in Nederland niet alleen gestreefd naar sociale menging in achterstandsbuurten. Sociale menging is ook een ideaalbeeld voor nieuwe buurten. Hoofdstuk 7 onderzoekt hoe bewoners van een fijnmazig gemengd woonblok (koop/huur) in de nieuwbouwwijk IJburg in Amsterdam aankijken tegen en omgaan met de diversiteit aan bewoners in hun gebouw. IJburg is ontworpen met als doel om een ‘wijk zonder grenzen’ te zijn. Het is geen achterstandsbuurt. Er is gekozen om hier onderzoek te doen vanuit de gedachte dat in nieuwe buurt sociale relaties als het ware uit het niets ontstaan omdat ze niet worden beïnvloedt door bestaande sociale verhoudingen en territoriale stigma, zoals vaak wel het geval is in achterstandsbuurten. De ervaringen van geïnterviewde bewoners blijken niet overeen te komen met het ideaalbeeld van een inclusieve wijk. Bewoners ervaren onderling grote sociale afstanden en trekken scheidslijnen op basis van de grootte en het type woning (koop of huur); etniciteit; huishoudcompositie; en de locatie van de woningen in het gebouw (boven of beneden). De tegenstellingen worden gevoed door problemen met het gebouwontwerp, ongelijke verhoudingen tussen huurders en kopers in het gebouwbeheer en het gesegregeerd gebruik van lokale voorzieningen. Het hoofdstuk benadrukt de behoefte aan een integrale aanpak in de ontwikkeling en het beheer van fijnmazig gemengde woonblokken, waarin de bredere sociaal institutionele context wordt meegenomen en er meer oog is voor het faciliteren van positieve ontmoetingen tussen diverse bewonersgroepen.
Conclusies
De empirische hoofdstukken laten zien dat een diverse woonomgeving uitdagingen vormt voor sociale cohesie, zoals taalbarrières en conflicterende normen over
215
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 229 het gebruik van gedeelde ruimten. Daarnaast ondervinden bewoners van achterstandsbuurten problemen die te maken hebben met armoede. Bewoners ervaren echter dat diversiteit hen ook kansen biedt. Anders dan vaak wordt gedacht geldt dit niet alleen voor middeninkomens. Perspectieven van andere bewonersgroepen op diversiteit in achterstandswijken verdienen meer aandacht in publieke en wetenschappelijke debatten. Dit onderzoek wijst bijvoorbeeld uit dat sommige minderheden zich in diverse wijken op hun plek voelen omdat ze niet de enige zijn die anders zijn. Een andere vraag die meer aandacht verdient is: waar en hoe ontstaan diverse sociale contacten in achterstandsbuurten? Dit onderzoek laat zien dat gedeelde ruimten met buren en lokale instituties zoals buurthuizen en scholen contact tussen buren en andere lokale kennissen met verschillende achtergronden faciliteren. Voorwaarde is wel dat bewoners een gelijkwaardig relatie hebben (zie hoofdstuk 7). Als geheel spreken de onderzoeksbevindingen het dominante beeld in wetenschap en beleid - dat er weinig sociale samenhang is in diverse buurten - tegen. Deze uitkomst kan verklaard worden door de manier waarop dit onderzoek is opgezet.
Er is gekozen om niet a priori op etnische diversiteit en inkomensverschillen te focussen, zoals veel wetenschappelijk onderzoek doet, maar om de dimensies van diversiteit centraal stellen die betekenisvol zijn voor bewoners. Dit levert een ander, meer genuanceerd beeld op van sociale cohesie in achterstandsbuurten. Onderzoek met vaste, door de onderzoeker bepaalde sociale classificaties, bijvoorbeeld etnische categorieën (mensen zonder migratieachtergrond; westerse en niet-westerse migranten), loopt het risico ideeën van de onderzoeker te reflecteren in plaats van die van bewoners. Hetzelfde argument gaat op voor de onderzoeksbenadering van sociale netwerken. Door niet a priori te focussen op sterke sociale banden tussen familie en vrienden, maar ook oog hebben voor relaties tussen buren en andere kennissen in de buurt, ontstaat een meer genuanceerd en ook optimistischer beeld van sociale samenhang in diverse buurten. Zwakke banden lijken meer mogelijkheden te bieden voor relaties tussen mensen met verschillende achtergronden dan sterke banden. Diverse zwakke banden dragen bovendien bij aan een thuisgevoel in de buurt (Peterson, 2016).
Wat dit onderzoek niet heeft kunnen vaststellen is hoe sociale banden zich ontwikkelen over de tijd: onder welke condities worden diverse zwakke banden
216
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 230 sterke banden en kunnen jongeren in hun volwassenwording hun diverse sociale netwerken in stand houden? Longitudinaal onderzoek is hier op zijn plaats. Vervolgonderzoek zou ook kunnen kijken naar motieven om een diverse buurt te verlaten voor een minder diverse buurt. Dit geeft meer inzicht in de problemen die mensen van een diverse woonomgeving kunnen ondervinden.
Beleidsaanbevelingen
Huidige politieke debatten over stedelijke diversiteit in Nederland en Vlaanderen gaan nog steeds vaak over hoeveel diversiteit wenselijk is, terwijl de realiteit is dat de diversificatie van de (stedelijke) bevolking onomkeerbaar is. Binnen traditionele demografische categorieën zoals etniciteit, leeftijd en inkomen neemt de diversiteit ook sterk toe, onder meer op het vlak van leefstijlen, sociale identiteiten en activiteitenpatronen (Vertovec 2007; Tasan-Kok et al. 2013). De onderzoeksbevindingen nodigen beleidsmakers uit om na te denken over de vraag hoe de toenemend diverse stedelijke bevolking te accommoderen. Een eerste stap is het ontwikkelen van een meer inclusieve beleidsretoriek over stedelijke diversiteit. Het problematiseren van etnische en culturele verschillen doet geen recht aan de bestaande, complexe stedelijke diversiteit. In die zin valt er een hoop te leren van de inclusieve en positieve retoriek over diversiteit die lokale initiatieven in diverse buurten hanteren (zie hoofdstuk 3). Een tweede manier om diversiteit beter te accommoderen is door ruimten te faciliteren die positieve ontmoetingen tussen diverse bewonersgroepen stimuleren. In de afgelopen jaren hebben gemeenten juist veel bezuinigd op buurtvoorzieningen en diensten voor lage inkomensgroepen, met name op buurthuizen, bibliotheken en taalcursussen voor nieuwkomers. In Rotterdam gaat er veel geld naar het creëren van aantrekkelijke wijken voor middeninkomens, terwijl deze groepen over het algemeen juist de minste tijd doorbrengen in hun buurt, weinig omgaan met lagere inkomensgroepen en betere toegang hebben tot voorzieningen. Een andere manier om sociale interacties te stimuleren is door gratis taalcursussen aan te bieden: bewoners in diverse achterstandsbuurten geven aan dat taalbarrières sociale interacties en sociale mobiliteit tegenwerken. Ten derde is het belangrijk de beleidsverwachtingen van inkomensmenging te temperen. Uit dit onderzoek en vele andere wetenschappelijk onderzoeken blijkt dat hogere inkomens over het
217
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 231 algemeen minder tijd besteden in de buurt, minder gebonden zijn aan de buurt voor hun sociale contacten en andere soorten voorzieningen gebruiken in de buurt dan lagere inkomensgroepen. Het aantrekken van middeninkomens leidt vrijwel nooit tot meer sociale cohesie tussen inkomensgroepen in achterstandsbuurten. Tenslotte is het belangrijk om in de ontwikkeling en het beheer van buurten geen voorrang te geven aan leefstijlen die in de ogen van autoriteiten meer wenselijk zijn - zoals die van (witte) middenklassen. Door de (witte) middenklasse als standaard te hanteren voor stadsbuurten wordt het belang van mensen met andere leefstijlen en competenties voor de stad ontkent.
218
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 232 CURRICULUM VITAE
Anouk Tersteeg (1988) obtained a BSc in Bèta-Gamma studies with a major in Human Geography (2011) and a research MSc in Urban Geography (2013) from the University of Amsterdam. Until July 2017, she worked as a junior researcher and PhD candidate on the European Union-funded research project DIVERCITIES. This was under the supervision of Dr. Gideon Bolt and Prof. dr. Ronald van Kempen, who sadly passed away in February 2016. With 14 case studies, mostly in Europe, DIVERCITIES examined how cities can benefit more from urban diversity in terms of social cohesion, social mobility, and entrepreneurship. Anouk carried out the Dutch case study within DIVERCITIES, which was on the city of Rotterdam. Under the supervision of Prof. dr. Pieter Hooimeijer and Dr. Gideon Bolt, Anouk worked on her PhD research on the opportunities and challenges for social cohesion in diverse, deprived urban contexts. Anouk has presented her research at international conferences, she has published in international journals, and she has organised various workshops and city walks for urban professionals. Besides fieldwork in Rotterdam, she has lived and conducted urban research in Bangkok, Thailand, Glasgow, Scotland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Copenhagen, Denmark. She is currently bringing theory into practice in her work as a policy advisor at the Dutch housing corporation GroenWest, while combining this with political interests in her spare time.
219
514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 233 514607-l-bw-Tersteeg Processed on: 30-10-2017 PDF page: 234
DEALINGDIVERSITY WITH
Policy makers worry about the negative impact of the DEALING WITH concentration of disadvantaged groups and minority ethnic groups on social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods. A popular response has been to diversify the housing stock as to house more households with a higher socioeconomic DIVERSITY position, which in practice are mostly white Dutch. Challenges and opportunities for social A large body of research has assessed these interventions cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods and has not found clear evidence for the intended results: when it comes to local social networks, lower and higher income groups and ethnic communities are often found to live parallel lives. However, the recent academic literature on super-diversity and hyper-diversity suggests that these studies might not grasp the full picture: urban societies are becoming diverse in ever more complex ways, not only in terms of ethnicity and class, but also regarding activity patterns, households types, cultures, lifestyles and identities. This poses important challenges for conducting research, particularly research on social perceptions and relations. Scholars have only recently started to study what complex urban diversity means for questions of social cohesion.
Much remains unclear about how people in highly diverse neighbourhoods perceive, experience and practice TERSTEEG ANOUK local diversity. This study attempts to provide insight. It examines how residents of deprived neighbourhoods face the challenges of living among diverse others and how they seize the opportunities for positive relations across differences.
ANOUK TERSTEEG