van Reekum, R.

English

This is an inquiry into the public and political debates over Dutchness and citizenship in the Netherlands (1972-2008). It demonstrates how disagreements over nationhood and citizenship were deliberately transformed from disputes about character into debates about identity and its particular problems. As debates about Dutchness and belonging grew in intensity and political significance, national identity debates came to involve narratives and performative repertoires that were markedly different from previous modes of articulation. The study reconstructs the emergence of this discursive formation, while also showing its subsequent development into an exceptionalist imaginary of dialogical Dutchness. Across these debates, Dutchness is - again and again - performed to be liberal, expressive, plural and outspoken. Inclusion into this nation is imagined at once inevitable and liberating, while also demanding and unattainable. Along the way, citizenship politics devolves into a governmental project of retracing the public image of Dutchness with borderlines of protection. The deliberate move away from character's essentialism ends up being a potent conversation machine. However, it fails to produce struggles to win and instead revolves discussions around a native public to be defended

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)Out of character: debating Dutchness, narrating citizenshipvan Reekum, R.Publication date2014Document VersionFinal published versionLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):van Reekum, R. (2014). Out of character: debating Dutchness, narrating citizenship. [Thesis,fully internal, Universiteit van Amsterdam].General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:09 Mar 2023out of  characterbyRogier van ReekumDebating Dutchness,  Narrating  CitizenshipOut of Character: Debating Dutchness, Narrating  Citizenship. Rogier van ReekumThis is an inquiry into the public and political debates over Dutchness and citizenship in the Netherlands (1972-2008). It demonstrates how disagreements over nationhood and citizenship were deliberately transformed from disputes about character into debates about identity  and its particular problems. As debates about Dutchness and belonging grew in intensity and political significance, national identity debates came to involve narratives and performative  repertoires that were markedly different from previous modes of articulation. The study  reconstructs the emergence of this discursive formation, while also showing its subsequent development into an exceptionalist imaginary of dialogical Dutchness. Across these debates, Dutchness is – again and again – performed  to be liberal, expressive, plural and outspoken. Inclusion into this nation is imagined at once  inevitable and liberating, while also demanding and unattainable. Along the way, citizenship  politics devolves into a governmental project  of retracing the public image of Dutchness with borderlines of protection. The deliberate move away from character's essentialism ends up  being a potent conversation machine. However,  it fails to produce struggles to win and instead revolves discussions around a native public  to be defended.OUT OF CHARACTER:DEBATING DUTCHNESS, NARRATING CITIZENSHIPACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFTter verkrijging van de graad van doctoraan de Universiteit van Amsterdamop gezag van de Rector Magnificusprof. dr. D.C. van den Boomten overstaan van een door het college voor promotiesingestelde commissie,in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteitop donderdag 18 december 2014, te 15:00 uurdoorRogier van Reekumgeboren te RotterdamPromotiecommissiePromotoren: Prof. dr. W.G.J. DuyvendakProf. dr. E.H. TonkensOverige leden: Prof. dr. C. CalhounProf. dr. J. T. LeerssenDr. A. A. M'charekProf. dr. W. SchinkelProf. dr. J. L. UitermarkFaculteit der Maatschappij- en GedragswetenschappenVoor mijn lief...Table of ContentsAcknowledgements    I1. Introduction: where to begin? 1A different impulse 2A research approach: Van Doorn on the Afrikaanderwijk 5A research question: De Swaan on liberal inclusion 102. Crafting an approach: composing nationalism and narratingof citizenship 17In view of culture 17Practice, performativity and particularity 22Doing Dutchness 27Doing Dutchness in public 30Studying public discourse 31What is national about citizenship politics? 39Composing nation, people and public 433. The culturalisation of citizenship, or how to narrate burgerschap 50Aspects of citizenship 52Abstracted, but how? 55Burgerschap as the public demonstration of autonomous moral conviction 57Looking in the mirror of burgerschap 63The re-culturalisation of burgerschap 66Section 1: Making Dutchness public 69Introduction to section 1 704. How Dutchness became a public problem: from national character to public question 71The dwindling self-evidence of national character 72The style of the lecture: Huizinga’s satisfaction 75The crisis of identity 78The anxieties of a post-racist imaginary 83A constitutional attempt to recognise race 85An ambivalent outsider 87We are/aren’t racist 91Enacting a post-racist consensus 955. Dialogical Dutchness: enacting Dutchness through debate 97Dialogical Dutchness: a national mythology of public expressiveness 98We are not nationalistic 98Emancipation for all, paternalism for some 101See me, hear me 103Tolerance as dialogue 104The imperative of debate 105Discussing nationhood in a new era 123The French inflection: historians find space to manoeuvre 128Out of touch in Europe 131Civilised nationalism: intellectual reflections 134Section 2: Ascending to the native public 145Introduction to section 2 1466. Reactive politics: moments and their men 147The moment of reaction 149Scheffer’s essayistic alarm 150Doing drama 152Reactions to a call for reaction 157Fortuyn’s politics of embeddedness 161Dutchness after the breach 1687. Enculturation: testing malleability through cultural demands 171Not so new: learned citizenship 173Making assimilation new 178Contesting Verdonk’s mission 182From tough Verdonk to brittle Vogelaar 189A community of individuals 1928. The right to speak of us: history, expert engagement andthe native public 197The nativity of the public 199Historical consciousness 205Neo-patriotism: the uses of ‘our’ history and feeling at home 209Making a national canon without a nation 215The commission and its problems 222The native public and its canon 229Canon reviewed 2349. Enacting the style of popularity 242Two contrasting attempts at non-exclusion 249When the sovereign spoke 250From Huizinga to Máxima 255This is Us 26110. Out of Character: the national inflections of citizenship politics 266An ethnomethodology of inflections 266Not character but identity: how change was done 272Instruments of Dutchness 275Particularising comparisons: from models to inflections 280The problematic of post-racism 283The problematic of plurality 284The problematic of autonomy 287The perils of nativism 289Living on the liberal plateau 295Bibliography 302Nederlandse samenvatting 339AcknowledgementsThere are many people, more than I can name here, who I thank for having been able to do a PhD-project, write up my research and finalise a dissertation. While I take full responsibility for its contents, the study in front of you is the product of a multitude.First of all, I want to thank Rosanne Stotijn, whose unwavering support helped me to actually pursue a PhD. Without her joyful confidence, I might never had jumped at the opportunity that came along in that summer of 2008. Next, I want to thank Jan Willem Duyvendak, Evelien Tonkens and Peter Geschiere for giving me the opportunity to begin with and, subsequently, not only being supervisors but also co-travellers on a sometimes bumpy ride. The greatest admiration and respect goes out to my fellow researchers in the project: Paul Mepschen, Bregje Termeer and Francio Guadeloupe. I fear I still don’t think and act like an anthropologist. You have failed to convert me. However, our ecumenical exchanges across divides that we didn’t invent have changed me forever. A huge amount of gratitude also goes out to the students involved in the project: Josip Kesic, Anne Brouwers, Thijs van Dooremalen and Fatiha El-Hajjari. Moreover, the project would have not been possible without the hard logistical work of Nazima Kadir and Martine Buijs. It was great to work and exchange ideas with the many research fellows in the projectthroughout the years: Antoine Socpa, Basile Ndjio, Isaïe Dougnon, Maame Gyekye-Jandoh, Murat Akan, Sandrine Bertaux, Rose Mary Allen and Fadma Aït Mous.Already before the project began, I had found a peer and a friend in Marguerite van den Berg. I was fortunate enough to be able to do my PhD alongside her at the AISSR. Sharing this experience, exchanging thoughts and feelings, turned the job into a profession and profession into life. I look forward to many years of professional and not-so-professional friendship. At the AISSR I also found old and new colleagues that inspired and encouraged me: Thomas Franssen, Thijs Bol, Chip Huisman, Sylvia Holla, Francisca Canteclaer van Barneveldt, Mandy de Wilde, Benno Netelenbos, Marieke van Eijk, Menno Hurenkamp, Marii Paskov, Anna Mann, Filipo Bertoni, Sanderien Verstappen, Marten Boekelo, Judith Elshout, Sander Steijn, Ellen Grootegoed, Marieke Slootman, Maybritt Jill Alpes, Jesse Hoffman, Valentina Di Stasio, Eline van Haastrecht, Efecan Inceoglu, Rhiannon Michelle, Naomi van Stapele, Lutz Hofer, Elmar Jansen, Anick Vollebregh, Matthijs Rooduijn, Carolina Evanescu, Paul van Hooft, David IEhrhardt, Apostolos Apostopolis, Vanessa Cantinho de Jesus, Michaël Deinema, Victor Toom, Yannis Tzaninis, Laurens Buijs, and many many more. Apart from being an ungodly organisational mess sometimes, the University of Amsterdam was a place where I found many scholars from whose guidance and example I havebenefited greatly. Among them are Bart van Heerikhuizen, Nico Wilterdink, BowenPaulle, Giselinde Kuipers, Anouk de Koning, Jan Rath, Imrat Verhoeven, Olga Sezneva, Christian Broer, Irene Stengs, Rineke van Daalen, Ali de Regt, Markha Valenta, Oskar Verkaaik, Baukje Prins, Annemarie Mol, Dvora Yanow, Loes Verplanke, Gerben Moerman, Walter Nicholls, Peter van Rooden, and Floris Vermeulen. Also, I thank Peter Scholten and Christophe Bertossi from whose co-authorship I learned a great deal. I’d like to thank my fellow editors at Krisis – Rene Gabriëls, Gijs van Oenen, Dirk Haen, Yolande Janssen, Irena Rosenthal, Ruth Sonderegger, Huub Dijstelbloem, Eva de Valk, Thijs Lijster, Robin Celikates, Jappe Groenendijk, Lonneke van der Velden, Daniel de Zeeuw and Absaline Hehakaya – for the opportunity to distract myself from the worries of a dissertation by every now and then drowning in the joys and frustrations of keeping our little vessel afloat. We will not perish! In fact, we will thrive! The many hours spent together, especially during our annual meetings in Maastricht, were instrumental in keeping the philosophical side of my academic heart pumping. I have gained more than I have been able to give.I’ve also been lucky enough to make some intellectual connections. Sometimes only sporadic encounters, other times sustained dialogues helped me to maintain a sense of direction. Of all these encounters I can only hint at a few: BramMellink, Merijn Oudenampsen, Matthijs Ponte, Markus Balkenhol, Daan Beekers, and Sinan Çankaya. Shared ideas, indignations and preoccupations bring us together from time to time and I continue to enjoy the encounters that are the result.In the last stint of writing, I had the great privilege to find myself among new colleagues – Jess Bier, Maja Hertoghs, Sanne Boersma, Friso van Houdt, Irenevan Oorschot and Willem Schinkel – who through their enthusiasm and intelligence have made the final stretch not only bearable but exciting. I look forward to our work together in the years to come.Having a lively intellectual milieu in which to breath and grow is fine and well. The soil is formed by the connections with family and friends that, even whencontact is all too infrequent, continue to make you who you are and will become. For hanging in there, for being around, for shaping me, for making a mark, I thank you: Anne Stolk, Gerard van Reekum, Marijke van Oosterzee, Elise Veltman-Van IIReekum, Ruben Veltman, Joyce Veltman, Mathijs Mol, Erik Borst, Sanne Wijbenga, Reinier Smit, Gijs van der Togt, IJsbrand de Boer, Niels Cornelissen, Annemarie Nuwenhoud, Bas Vredeling, Hugo van der Wedden, Chris Wittkampf, Uhuru Phalafala, Senem Sirin, Marjolein Cazemier, Floortje Kootte, Willem Kort, Maren Siebert, Teun Meurs, Marianne Bloemink, Marc Stotijn, and David Stotijn.Finally, I wholeheartedly thank Shiva Shazad, Robbie Voss and Anja Groten for their work and assistance in getting all the research material together and producing the actual book in front of you.Somewhere along the way things started falling apart. For a while life sort of crashed, deadlines sped past and a finished dissertation seemed very far away. For some inexplicable reason, through some cosmic providence, in some crazy accidentthat turned into a somersault, life gave me seconds. I wasn’t prepared for this kind of grace, this measure of forgiveness, and yet…it happened. She is the sole reason it all got done in the end. I love you, Lisette.Amsterdam, October 2014IIIThe research and writings that form the basis for this dissertation were executed within a larger research project – Citizenship, National Canons and the Issue of Cultural Diversity (NWO project number 312-99-102) – headed by Prof. dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak, Prof. dr. Evelien Tonkens and Prof. dr. Peter Geschiere. This project ran from September 2008 to November 2013 at the Amsterdam Institute forSocial Science Research (AISSR) of the University of Amsterdam. It was funded by NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, by Oxfam-Novib and by FORUM, Institute for Multicultural Affairs.IV

Out of character: debating Dutchness, narrating citizenship

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/4502257/154478_01.pdf

Out of character: debating Dutchness, narrating citizenship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications