Suchergebnisse

Integration politics in the Netherlands has changed dramatically between 1990 and 2005. Whereas ethnic and religious differences were hitherto pacified through accommodation, a new and increasingly powerful current in Dutch politicsproblematizes the presence of minorities.This development represents a challenge to sociologists and political scientists: how to map and explain drastic changes?Arguing that extant approaches are better at explaining continuity than change, this book develops a distinct approach to the study of dynamic power relations to understand drastic transformations in the national debate as well as urban governance

Integration politics in the Netherlands has changed dramatically between 1990 and 2005. Whereas ethnic and religious differences were hitherto pacified through accommodation, a new and increasingly powerful current in Dutch politics problematized the presence of minorities. This development represents a challenge to sociologists and political scientists: how to map and explain drastic changes? Arguing that extant approaches are better at explaining continuity than change, this book develops a relational discourse analysis to understand dynamic power relations in national as well as local politics. - De manier waarop integratie, moslims en minderheden werd besproken en bestuurd veranderde drastisch tussen 1990 en 2005. Maar hoe veranderde het integratiedebat precies, en waarom? En hoe werkten die veranderingen door in het beleid van steden als Amsterdam en Rotterdam? Dit boek gebruikt nieuwe methodes en data om die vragen te beantwoorden. Een analyse van opinieartikelen laat zien dat culturalisten (debatdeelnemers die stellen dat onze 'verlichte', 'liberale', Nederlandse cultuur moet worden beschermd tegen etnische en Islamitische minderheidsculturen) hechtere relaties onderhouden en meer achter hun leiders staan dan hun (talrijke maar gefragmenteerde) tegenstanders. De veranderende machtsverhoudingen in het debat blijken niet één op één door te werken in het lokale beleid. In de periode dat Leefbaar Rotterdam de gemeenteraad domineerde (2002-2006) zijn migrantenorganisaties over de hele linie eerder versterkt dan verzwakt. In het door de sociaal-democraten gedomineerde Amsterdam daarentegen had slechts een klein aantal organisaties invloed en toegang tot subsidies. Dynamics of Power in Dutch Integration Politics gaat niet alleen in op deze verrassende resultaten maar ontwikkelt ook een theoretische aanpak - gebaseerd op het werk van Jeffrey Alexander, Pierre Bourdieu, Randall Collins en Norbert Elias - waarmee snelle politieke omwentelingen kunnen worden ontleed en verklaard. Dit boek is gebaseerd op een proefschrift dat cum laude werd beoordeeld en beloond met de Jaarprijs Politicologie 2011 en de internationale Maria Ioannis Baganha Dissertation Award 2011.

AbstractDrawing on the figurational sociology of Norbert Elias and the Foucauldian governmentality approach, this article outlines the political rationalities and governmental technologies pertaining to the territorial governance of urban marginality in Western Europe. Whereas many authors have suggested that segregation is key to the governing of urban marginality in the USA and perhaps the post‐industrial city generally, I suggest that, at least in Western Europe, marginality is governed through integration. The argument is illustrated with examples from the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Integration politics in the Netherlands has changed dramatically between 1990 and 2005. Whereas ethnic and religious differences were hitherto pacified through accommodation, a new and increasingly powerful current in Dutch politics problematized the presence of minorities. This development represents a challenge to sociologists and political scientists: how to map and explain drastic changes? Arguing that extant approaches are better at explaining continuity than change, this book develops a relational discourse analysis to understand dynamic power relations in national as well as local politics.

This article explains how and why the relationship between the Amsterdam squatter movement and the local government has changed over the last decade. Besides reassessing Pruijt's analysis of the Amsterdam squatter movement in a recent issue of this journal, the article also engages with the post‐Fordist literature on social movements. This literature is largely based on the assumption that a subversive identity is incompatible with co‐optation. However, as such 'soft factors' as culture gain more importance in urban growth strategies, it is likely that some segments of urban movements may become co‐opted while retaining their subversive identity. It is hypothesized that we are witnessing the emergence of a movement meritocracy: with the rise of soft neoliberal urban policies, the way in which the local polity delivers incentives follows an increasingly discriminatory pattern, giving a place to those segments that contribute to the cultural vibrancy of the city whilst ignoring segments that struggle for basic provisions. These processes are probably not peculiar to Amsterdam and there is an urgent need for post‐Fordist and other social movement theory to investigate what are the consequences of these shifts for government‐movement interactions.Comment et pourquoi la relation entre le mouvement des squatters d'Amsterdam et le gouvernement local a‐t‐elle changé au cours de la dernière décennie? Outre l'examen de l'analyse qu'a faite Pruijt du mouvement des squatters d'Amsterdam dans un récent numéro de cette revue, l'article s'appuie sur la littérature post‐fordiste des mouvements sociaux. Celle‐ci se fonde surtout sur l'hypothèse qu'une identité subversive est incompatible avec une cooptation. Or, comme les 'facteurs intangibles' tels que la culture prennent de l'importance dans les stratégies d'expansion urbaine, il est probable que certains segments des mouvements urbains pourront être cooptés tout en gardant leur nature subversive. On suppose l'apparition d'une méritocratie des mouvements: avec l'essor des politiques urbaines néolibérales de compromis, la manière dont le gouvernement local propose des mesures d'incitation suit un modèle de plus en plus discriminatoire, donnant une place aux segments qui contribuent à la vibration culturelle de la ville, tout en ignorant ceux qui luttent pour des services de base. Les processus n'étant sans doute pas propres à Amsterdam, il est urgent que les théories des mouvements sociaux, post‐fordistes ou autres, étudient les conséquences de ces changements dans les interactions entre gouvernement et mouvements.