Upload
vonhu
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Locals and Cosmopolitans: Encounters with
Transnationalism in Amsterdam's Begijnhof
Jaco Correa Sánchez1* Simon Jonas Hadlich1*
[email protected] [email protected]
Eline Schaart1* Vasileios Takas1*
[email protected] [email protected]
Itumeleng Monokoane2
INTRODUCTION
A famous saying these days has it that the world is 'shrinking'. Even if we do not leave to
place where we live, the world comes to us. It comes to us over the radio, as global music
trends, it comes to us with international migration, and it comes to us with increasingly
international legislation. As we listen to music, meet immigrants, or read about
multilateral trade agreements, we encounter transnationalism.
Transnationalism is the global interconnectedness of people, goods, and ideas. It
is born out of the process of glocalisation: the simultaneity of processes that are both
global and local (Robertson, 1997; Roudometof, 2005). National borders are no longer
seen as naturally given 'containers' for societies; instead, people increasingly interact
across borders (Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2004).
Roudometof (2005) argues that people react differently to their encounter with
transnationalism. While 'cosmopolitans' embrace it, espousing global values, 'locals'
attach themselves to locality and local culture. In between are people with a 'glocal'
1 Amsterdam University College, Amsterdam, The Netherlands .* The authors contributed equally to the paper.2 University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Begijnhof 2
mindset, holding some cosmopolitan attitudes while at the same time being attached to
a particular location.
In this paper, we study how residents of the Begijnhof, an inner courtyard in the
centre of Amsterdam, react to their encounter with transnationalism. In particular, we
focus on their interactions with two types of transnational visitors to their residential
courtyard, tourists and (illegal) immigrants.
Initial Expectations
We chose the Begijnhof as the object of our observation without much previous
knowledge of the place, based on one team member's recommendation. Based on the
introduction of the Begijnhof as a building complex in the centre of Amsterdam
previously belonging to a Christian lay order, the team members, who are from the
Netherlands, Germany, Colombia, Greece, and South Africa, stated their expectations
before the first observation.
All team members stated expectations about, as one of them phrased it, 'serenity
and peace'. The isolation from and contrast to the 'buzzing' city centre around the Spui
was repeatedly pointed out, in both a social and an architectural sense. The religious
nature of the building complex also contributed to this expectation, as well as to, in one
member's words, an association with 'the sparingness of Dutch Protestantism'.
However, we were also aware of the touristy side of Begijnhof, which led some to expect
friction between local residents and visitors.
THE BEGIJNHOF
Historical Development of the Begijnhof
The formation of the Beguinage (Begijnhof) started in about 1150. The first ‘Beguines’
were a group of women, who came together to live in a religious community, primarily
to look after the sick. These women had to be unmarried, make a vow of chastity and
promise obedience to the parish priest. The foundation was not initiated by absolute
rules and lifelong vows for the women, so they could renounce their duties at any
moment and leave the Beguinage. Yet, later in 1393 Albrecht van Beiren (Albert of
Begijnhof 3
Bavaria) took the Beguinage under his protection and ratified rules and regulations.
Until 1417, the Beguinage did not reach the south part (Begijnensteeg, Spui side).
The south part was a swampy area, which the Beguines changed into solid ground filling
it with rubbish dirt and sand, where many new small houses were built. Also in 1417, the
Beguinage obtained another big piece of ground from the old Beguinage up to the bridge
near the Rozenboomsteeg and from that bridge up to the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal.
Unfortunately though, the larger part of Beguinage and its church were destroyed by the
big fires in Amsterdam of 1421 and 1452. However, in spite of the complete destruction
of Beguinage, the church and many of the houses were rebuilt. An additional extension
of housing ground was added in 1511 close to the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal street,
extended to the water’s edge giving it the geographical shape that has today.
The Beguinage had been a religious community since the beginning of its
existence, yet it is reported that the first church was built years later. In 1397, the
Beguines built a small chapel dedicated to Virgin Mary. Later on, when the Beguinage
was extended in 1417, Matthias, titular bishop of Biduane solemnly consecrated a new
chapel. This chapel was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist
and the apostle Matthew. The church was also destroyed in the great fires of Amsterdam
(1421, 1452), but restored as the rest of the housing residencies and re-dedicated to the
Blessed Virgin Mary, St John and St Ursula. The Beguines themselves paid for the
rebuilding and restoration.
Until 1578, Amsterdam was almost completely Roman Catholic, with two large
parish churches, six chapels, and many monasteries and convents. Every year the
worship of the Sacrament of the Miracle drew thousands of pilgrims to the city. In
Amsterdam, the Protestant reformers were particularly opposed to the ‘idolatry’ of the
Host and the ‘Roman Catholic concept’ of the Holy Mass.
However, the Orangist Calvinists prevailed and on 26 May 1578, the Alteration
turned out badly for the Roman Catholics. The Protestants in Amsterdam took over
power and the Catholic pastors were dismissed. From that point, it was strictly
forbidden for Roman Catholics to openly profess their faith, so as a result, all churches,
Begijnhof 4
monasteries and convents were confiscated by the authorities. In the Beguinage, the
Beguines had to hand over their church in the courtyard. It was handed to the English
and has ever since been called the ‘English Church’. Nevertheless, the Catholics
established hidden churches, so that they can profess their faith.
After 1578 and the surrender of the church to the English, the Catholic Beguines
turned to profess their faith in one of the small houses in the yard, not always the same
one. The construction of the current Hidden Church was realized in 1671, by the nephew
of the parish priest van der Mije, after joining two houses bought for that purpose. The
building plans were approved by the municipality under the condition that the building
would not look like a church from the outside. It was designed by the Catholic architect
Philips Vingboons, and was dedicated to St John the Evangelist and St Ursula. When the
chapel was finished in 1682, 150 Beguines and 12 widows lived in the Beguinage.
In later centuries, various changes were made to the hidden chapel as well as on
the houses that form the Beguinage. The chapel was expanded significantly on the right
side and the Beguines were given their own side chapel on the left. The interior of the
chapel has also undergone many changes in respect to the paintings, lamps, tabernacle,
statues and windows. Regarding the houses, the wooden façades were changed, though
18 houses still have their gothic wooden frame. In 1984-1987 the Beguinage courtyard
was renovated and some houses were enlarged. In addition, the occupancy has changed.
On 23 May 1971, Sister Antonia, the last Beguine died, 84 years old. So since 1971 the
Beguinage is not longer a ‘Beguinage’ in the strict sense of the word.
Although no a Beguinage, residency in the Begijnhof is strictly regulated. The
houses are only open for unmarried women (including widows). While restrictions
prohibiting male visitors to enter the houses have been lifted, they are still to leave the
premises after 17:00, when the Begijnhof is closed to the public.
The Begijnhof as a Physical Space
The Begijnhof (Ill. 1) is a residential courtyard located in the historic centre of
Amsterdam. It is fully enclosed by buildings of three and four levels facing one another's
façades. The complex has two entrances, a wooden door located at Spui square and a
Begijnhof 5
gate along the side Amsterdam Historical Museum. Whereas the surroundings of the
Begijnhof, in particular Spui square, are noisy and crowded, the courtyard is acoustically
isolated and thus much calmer.
Once inside, there is a two-section garden, one of which centres around the statue
of a nun. The other section showed a Christmas tree and tulips that, at the time of the
observation, already dotted flowers as a consequence of the warm winter. A foot walk
leads around the main garden that makes up most of the residential area; at both ends,
two metal bars separate the private area of the Begijnhof from the area that is open to
the public.
The houses of the Begijnhof are small,
three- or four-level buildings in classical
Dutch style, sporting adorned pediments.
They are fronted by small gardens of often
not more than just a few square meters in
size. While the buildings differ vastly in style,
they are generally well-kept. Notably
enough, while the Dutch are generally known
for leaving their curtains open, in the
Begijnhof these were conspicuously closed.
At one of the edges of the courtyard,
close to the main entrance leading onto Spui
square, stands the Wooden House;
remarkable for being one of only two
historical wooden buildings in Amsterdam.
Its exterior is visibly old and completely
black; at the level of the second floor, the
shape of a door that was covered later is still visible. The interior keeps the wood
columns and sports red tile floors.
Located in between both gardens is the English Church belonging to the Church
of Scotland. It is approximately 20 by 40 meters in size and crowned by a tower. Only
one out of its 21 windows is made of stained glass showing a Gothic illustration. Inside,
doors, chairs and the box are made of wood. There are four central chandeliers and nine
Ill. 1: Schematic map of the Begijnhof.
Begijnhof 6
flags on the wall, all from English speaking regions of the world. There is live music
from the biggest organ, which is placed on the second floor and has some wood figures
at the top: children playing the trumpet and cello. A smaller organ and a piano are in
located towards the front, next to the pulpit and the Bible. In the very front of the
church there is a sentence written in golden letters that states "create in me a clean
heart". On the right side of the church, there is a cubiculum (very similar to a
confessional box) with a working clock on top. Inside there are also two organs and one
piano.
Facing the English Church is the entrance to the Begijn Kapel, or “Hidden
Chapel”, which belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Its façade is similar to the
residential houses in the complex, only distinguished by some stained glass windows.
Inside, the chapel has two levels. At the top floor, there are two galleries and part of the
religious ornamentation; the lower floor is filled with 30 wooden benches. Next to the
entrance is a table with devotional candles. Each wall is covered with pictures of saints
and illustrations. In the left wing of the chapel is a crèche of about 30 centimetres; the
right wing houses a store selling Catholic religious goods. The columns throughout the
building, as well as the picture frames and pulpit, are made of marble and plaster. Each
frame is decorated with a bouquet of fresh flowers and candles.
The Begijnhof as a Social Space
Visitors mostly enter the Begijnhof coming from Spui square, a noisy shopping area.
Passing through the gates, the visitor experiences a sharp transition as the noise level
drops off abruptly, giving way for a calm atmosphere. As they enter, many visitors adjust
to this change in environment and lower their voices. Apart from their conversations,
the soundscape consists of attenuated noises from the city, including sirens and cars,
contrasted by organ music coming from the inside of the English Church.
At the time of our first observation, during the early afternoon of a January
weekday, tourists mostly wandered the Begijnhof in groups of two; however, larger
guided tourist groups entered the complex about every 15 minutes. Judging from their
appearance and conversations, the tourists were predominantly middle aged and from
Western countries. They moved in particular between the 'wooden house', the English
Church, and the Begijn Kapel, gazing at the façades and many of them taking pictures
Begijnhof 7
from time to time. In particular the guided groups entered and left through the entrance
on Spui square, such that the back part of the courtyard beyond the church entrances
seem less frequented.
In contrast to the tourists, the residents of the houses around Begijnhof walked
quickly from and to their houses, seemingly irritated by the presence of tourists. This
population seemed to be mostly older, white Dutch people. During later observations, in
particular on Sunday, the dynamics among residents became more visible. In particular,
it is noteworthy that churchgoers of both denominations greeted each other, leaving the
impression of an intact community that was not divided along sectarian lines.
At one point, we observed a tourist who crossed a barrier onto the lawn of one of
the central gardens in order to come closer to a statue; he was quickly reprimanded by a
resident, who seemed to be annoyed by the incident. Otherwise, the residents largely
ignored the tourists.
Inside the English Church, during our first observation a conversation of three
elderly women discussing their latest hospital visits created a surprisingly informal
atmosphere. At the time of our observation, we were the only visitors of the church. In
contrast, in the Begijn Kapel the atmosphere was silent, and several people were seated
on the benches, praying. From time to time, churchgoers bought and lighted devotional
candles.
The Wooden House serves as the location of centre for illegal immigrants, where
they can find (religious) counsel. Consequently, inside we observed a group of non-
European men. The centre is operated as a joint initiative by the two large Christian
denominations which are represented in the Begijnhof, the Catholic and the Protestant
Church.
Physical and Social Contrasts in the Begijnhof
The Begijnhof lends itself to study several phenomena that are momentous to society at
large in a small, clearly demarcated physical space. Among the contrasts we noticed
during our observation were those between public and private, sacred and profane, and
tradition and modernity.
Being a residential area and at the same time a tourist attraction, in the Begijnhof
public and private sphere come unusually close. Within the courtyard, metal bars
Begijnhof 8
restricting some of the ways to residents create physical demarcation between public
and private space.
The contrast between sacred and profane is deeply ingrained the history of this
space. The former building complex of a Christian lay order, it was both (profane)
housing unit and the location of two churches. Nowadays, the appearance of the
residential buildings clashes with the expectation of a monastery-like space.
Being a conservation site, the Begijnhof is explicitly historical; both residential
buildings and churches are kept in their original state. On the other hand, the Begijnhof
is not a museum, and is shaped by his residents and visitors. A particularly conspicuous
artefact by which modernity makes its way into the historical environment is the clock
inside the English Church, whose ticking seemed to introduce an unusual moment of
profanity in the sacred space.
Encounters with Transnationalism in the Begijnhof
We identify three distinct social groups in the Begijnhof: its residents, who are
exclusively (mostly older) unmarried women of (presumably) Dutch nationality; the
tourists, who are mostly from Western countries, as well as East Asia; and the migrants,
who are from a range of non-Western countries, more often male, and have no legal
residence in the county.
The Begijnhof is well-suited to the study of glocalisation because it provides
clearly demarcated physical space in which the local residents encounter two distinct
groups of transnational 'visitors': tourists and migrants. We study how the encounter
with these two transnational groups shapes the attitude of residents towards
glocalisation.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Glocalisation
It can generally be taken for fact that most humans today live in a globalised world:
economies, people, and culture are globally linked. However, the term is used most
Begijnhof 9
saliently in economics, and indeed the flow of capital is much 'freer' than that of people.
Too describe the individual experience of globalisation, many anthropologists and
sociologists have taken to using the term glocalisation. A portmanteau word made up of
'global' and 'local', it can be taken to denote "internal globalisation" (Beck, 2002). As
Roudometof (2005) explains, it serves to "highlight the reality of micro-globalization,
the fact that globalization is not a macro-concept that can only be accounted for through
references to large structures" (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2003).
When we use the term glocalisation, it serves to emphasise that the world is not
uniformly moving towards increasing globalization; rather, there is also a tendency
toward the local and hyperlocal (e.g. in the media sector, Miller & Stone, 2009). In the
words of Robertson (1997), "'glocalisation' means the simultaneity - the co-presence - of
both universalizing and particularizing tendencies". As he illustrates, this is the case in
the economy, e.g. in the globalised production of localized consumer goods; but it is also
apparent the the social sphere (see e.g. Kraidy (1999), who adopts a notion of global-
local hybridity).
Thus, if we adopt a notion of glocalisation in this paper, it is to describe the
simultaneous occurrence of two diverging processes, globalization and localization. In
many ways, this is a macro-level process - in particular in the economy. In the context of
this paper, however, we follow Roudometof's (2005) notion of “micro-globalization”.
Glocalisation in this sense is globalization as it is experienced locally in the lifeworld of
individuals.
Transnationalism
If glocalisation is the process which economy, people, and culture are undergoing, then
transnationalism is the effect of this process. Transnationalism is the connectivity and
motion of people, goods and ideas across borders. This connectivity is partly enabled
and certainly promoted by globalization (in particular, by global legislation and
Begijnhof 10
infrastructure). As Roudometof (2005) writes, "transnationalism is an emergent
property that is born out of [glocalisation]".
Transnationalism, as conceptualized by Roudometof (2005), follows from the
insufficiency of using the nation state as the natural 'container' for societies. As he
points out, "in pre-global sociology, a ‘society’ was conceived of as an entity contained
within the boundaries of the nation- state, as if the real boundaries of the state were
constructing a social space of interaction and sociability for its citizens". Under this
traditional view of society, social 'space' is not to be understood as a metaphor, but in
the very physical sense of the area enclosed by national borders. A crossing-over
between such spaces, then, could only exist as an anomaly.
This perspective is increasingly found to be inadequate. In the words of Levitt
and Glick Schiller (2004), "the nation-state container view of society does not capture,
adequately or automatically, the complex interconnectedness of contemporary reality".
Instead, it is contrasted - and replaced, as in the 'transnational social field perspective'
propounded by Levitt and Glick Schiller - by transnationalism, which is spaces, practices
and communities that take place within and across multiple of these 'containers'.
Roudometof (2005) proposes to conceptualize transnationalism as comprising
three layers, which we will shortly introduce here. These three layers are transnational
social spaces, transnational fields, and transnational networks.
Transnational social spaces are constructed by transnational practices as they
enter everyday life. This is the broadest layer, encompassing much more than
transnational migration (to which transnationalism, as a concept, was initially
restricted). Based on the material (e.g. telecommunication networks) and non-material
(e.g. music sub-cultures) border-crossing infrastructure that glocalisation provides,
transnational social spaces emerge in the interactions of day-to-day life.
The second layer, transnational fields, is reached when these interactions are
part of long-term, formalized relationships. This is e.g. the case when international
Begijnhof 11
agencies come into play, but also where agencies of different nation-states are
interacting with each other (i.e. in all matters pertaining to international law).
International trade, to is a case of a transnational field.
The actors in transnational social spaces and fields, however, need not be
transnationals themselves, as Roudometof points out. This component only comes into
play in the third layer, that of transnational networks or communities. These are
networks of "groups of people who live across state borders", which does not only
include migrants (for whom the term 'transnational' was initially coined), but also
business people, students, and perhaps tourists.
Locals and Cosmopolitans
As is apparent from the above, by far not all people living in the glocalised world, and
engaging in transnational practices, are transnationals themselves. But clearly, most
people today encounter - and engage with - transnationalism. As a central part of his
theory, Roudometof (2005) posits that people react differently to their encounter with
transnationalism.
Roudometof outlines two prototypical contemporaries, the 'local' and the
'cosmopolitan' (cf. Hannerz, 1990). Whereas the cosmopolitan adopts an "open,
encompassing attitude" towards their transnational experience, the local reacts closed-
minded and defensive (Roudometof, 2005). However, this difference has multiple
dimensions. As Roudometof (2005) proposes, locals and cosmopolitans can be
distinguished according to their 1) degree of attachment to locality, 2) degree of
attachment to a state or country, 3) degree of attachment to and support of local culture,
and 4) degree of support for economic, cultural and institutional protectionism.
While this posits locals and cosmopolitans as antipodes, Roudometof does not
Begijnhof 12
exclude the possibility of an in-between. Rather, he argues that these two might be ideal
types on the outer edges of a continuum. Those individuals populating the middle range
of the continuum, i.e. expressing inconsistency in their ideals, would then have to be
understood as sporting a 'glocal' mindset. Indeed, as glocalisation is conceptualized as
the simultaneous experience of global (here: cosmopolitan) and local tendencies, we
expect to find such attitudes.
There are two implications of this theory that are particularly salient, and should
therefore be emphasised. First, it is not a priori clear whether increased exposure (on
whatever scale) to transnationalism correlates with cosmopolitanism (which seems to be
assumed quite frequently). Second, Roudometof (2005) points out that there is already
evidence that 'locals' are less accepting towards outsiders (Phillips, 2002).
The latter finding links our theoretical framework to the field of social
psychology. While Roudometof (2005) posits differential reactions to the encounter
with transnationalism, he does not specify the cognitive and emotional (and ultimately,
neural) processes that would be decisive for such a divergence. The exploration of in-
group/out-group dynamics, in particular, might yield relevant results in this direction.
Tourists and Vagabonds
Analysing individual reactions to the encounter with transnationalism on the
local/cosmopolitan continuum alone neglects the possibility that the nature of the
transnational itself might impact these reactions. Even within the layers conceptualized
by Roudometof (2005), what this encounter with transnationalism entails may differ
widely: transnational trade e.g. can include food staples just as well as drugs. Here, we
would in particular like to point out the different portrayal of transnational people.
The fact that there are vast class differences between transnationals is perhaps
best summed up in Bauman's (1998) slogan "green light for the tourists, red light for the
Begijnhof 13
vagabonds". Underlying is the observation that cross-border mobility is a form of social
capital granted to some people much more easily than to others. To understand this
divide, it is worth going back to the sources of the terms 'cosmopolitan' and
'transnational'. Both used to have a meaning that differs considerably from the one
adopted in this paper.
Cosmopolitanism, as Hannerz (1990) explains, is commonly understood as "an
intellectual and aesthetic stance of openness towards divergent cultural experiences". It
is thus clearly a middle- to upper-class phenomenon, and requires the competence to
deal with said experiences. Transnationals, on the other hand, were originally construed
as 'people out of place' - in particular, working migrants and refugees. These people are
not only from a different economic class than the cosmopolitans, but also thought to be
endowed with less competence to make sense of their encounter with different cultures.
While we use the terminology of cosmopolitanism and transnationalism
differently, the element of class differences between transnationals is represented in our
study in the differential appearance of tourists and (illegal) migrants. Given the
valuations that are clearly ingrained in the older conceptualizations, who is perceived as
representing transnationalism should matter for shaping the attitudes of locals and
cosmopolitans.
Application to the Begijnhof
We are applying Roudometof's (2005) theory about the interconnection between
glocalisation, transnationalism and cosmopolitanism to a research site located in
Amsterdam's Begijnhof, a (physically) close community that is marked by the presence
of non-transnational residents and transnational visitors. Our main research question is
concerned with reaction of residents to their encounter with transnationalism.
Particular emphasis is placed not just on whether residents lean towards the
Begijnhof 14
cosmopolitan or the local pole of the spectrum, but also on the factors that shape these
attitudes. The differences between the transnational visitors - tourists and (illegal)
immigrants - are a salient point to start with, keeping in mind Bauman's (1998)
argument about class differences.
MIGRANT CENTRE IN THE WOODEN HOUSE
The symbolism that dominates the courtyard is also embodied in each of the buildings
that surround the Begijnhof. Even though the Wooden House does not hold a large
touristy role in comparison to the other two churches, it, too, welcomes diversity and
experiences of coexistence on daily basis. There are two ways to see the building as a
symbol of variety itself: the wooden house is one of only two houses in the entire city
that were preserved after 1521 when the government of Amsterdam abolished the
construction of houses made of wood due to the fires that consumed an important
portion of the capital.
Nowadays the ideas of "difference and surviving" are still expressed in the work
done by a group of volunteers assigned to the organization "The Open Door", an
institution created by the two churches placed in the courtyard. A group of volunteers
help to terminally ill patients, people without a place to sleep or money to buy food in
the same place where the richest ladies of the centre of the city live. Their assistance is
free of charge.
Consistent with the dichotomy of concepts that are perceived in the rest of the
residential complex where residents and vagabonds or local and global people interact
in complex manners, on January 16th, 1944 The Wooden House decided to combine a
wing from both the Anglican and Catholic churches (both present in Begijnhof) to offer
a more solid, specialized and tolerant support to people from different backgrounds.
Under the direction of pastors and priests, the Wooden House now links volunteers with
diverse frameworks, whose profiles illustrate how globalization is subtly experienced in
the work they develop with the patients.
Begijnhof 15
“Ben” for instance, is one of the 9 volunteers who assist in “The Open Door”. This
Dutch man defines himself as a bisexual guy whose experience in the field of Eastern
religions has given him the authority to offer spiritual assistance essentially directed at
illegal immigrants who choose to settle in the Netherlands. He is aware of how his white
skin colour stands out in a room where the vast majority of the people that he helps are
black. The label with which he identifies himself is "The Happy Helper".
Liliana Graciela Hernandez is another volunteer and an immigrant herself. She
was born in Argentina and 23 years ago she moved to Holland to improve her third
language since she was already taking classes on Dutch culture in her school back in
Latin America. The terms Graciela uses to refer to people who she supports daily suggest
the sense of relationship that exists between volunteers and immigrants. She uses the
term "clients" to talk about the more than 300 people that arrive to The Wooden House
looking for help.
The conclusions made via this way to refer to the immigrants are hard to clarify
since the information the volunteers have related to the visitors "is private because
infiltration can compromise any case," she says. The real identity and situation of the
immigrants who come to the institution is protected by a confidentiality agreement
between the priests, pastors and social workers. The available information on the cases
she coordinates is limited to observation in the field.
According to the The Open Door’s annual report of 2011, people who apply for
assistance usually share a unique interest of getting through their problems, one same
space and also similar expectations about time and attention; but when it comes to
nationalities and personal values their profiles vary considerably. In 2011 alone, 309
people came to The Open Door from 61 countries. The "clients" come mostly from
Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Netherlands, Congo, Somalia,
Suriname, Liberia and Morocco. This differentiation is accentuated once one analyses
Begijnhof 16
the group in terms of gender. 223 of the people were men and only 86 women, which
also affects the statistics relating to the issues that brought them to Begijnhof. Women
came essentially due to rape and men because of persecution or HIV.
INTERVIEWS WITH RESIDENTS
We focused our interviews on two of the three groups we identified in the Begijnhof;
residents and migrants. In both cases, we encountered severe difficulties in finding
interview partners. While we were able to interview some Begijnhof residents,
Begijnhof Residents
Our interviews with residents of the Begijnhof focused on three issues that seemed
particularly important for our research question. These were the attitude towards the
migrants frequenting the counselling centre in the Wooden House, the attitude towards
tourists visiting the Begijnhof, and the state of the residents' community.
Anticipating that residents might feel intimidated if approached for interviews on
the walkways in front of their houses, we attempted to initiate a first contact via the
information centre of the Begijnhof. However, we did not receive any answer
whatsoever. After some more phone calls it turned out that the information centre had
forwarded our email to the council of residents. Since our call for interview partners was
not answered, it seems that the residents were less than eager participate in our
research.
Further interviews were initiated by approaching residents when entering or
leaving their houses. We initiated these interviews in Dutch, to reduce the possible
reluctance of residents to talk to us. This means that all interviews with residents were
conducted by the sole Dutch-speaking member of our team, Eline Schaart, in company
of a second team member. Our interactions with residents, then, fall into one of three
categories: vocal defensiveness, disregard, and actual cooperation.
While most residents who we approached reacted by disregarding our
researchers or were unwilling to be interviewed, we succeeded in setting up two
Begijnhof 17
independent interviews (interview with Beathe Nielsen, app. 1; interview with Linde
Gruijter, app. 2). Some of the street interviews, too, generated valuable data, even if they
did not result in full interviews. Further attempts to set up interviews upon
recommendations from previous interviewees, in particular with the oldest resident of
the Begijnhof (a 94-year old woman), were unfortunately not successful.
"I have nothing to do with the immigrants!"
When asked for an interview, most residents reacted by disregarding our researchers; a
pattern that repeated itself over several days of research. This might be due to the fact
that the Begijnhof has frequently been the focus of similar studies. As three residents
explained independently of each other within one day - the majority of residents
approached -, they were "not interested in another study about their living area". Hence,
the constant presence of researchers might trouble residents more than the potentially
controversial topics of the research.
It seems, however, that the migrant counselling centre located in the Wooden
House is indeed a sensitive topic for at least some residents. This become obvious in the
conversation with one woman, who reaction with initial suspicion to the interview
request. When asked about the Wooden House, she got agitated and exclaimed that she
had "absolutely nothing to do with the immigrants who come here" and that our
interviewer was "obviously asking the wrong questions to the wrong persons". Clearly,
the presence of the migrants is linked to some tension in this case.
In the cases where we succeeded in conducting full semi-structured interviews,
the reactions to questions about the migrant counselling centre were less violent, but
still largely negative. Both our subjects claimed to know about the centre, but to have
"nothing to do with it". They were reluctant to talk about the issue, and especially about
their objections against the centre. This included in particular one woman's assurance
that she was "not a racist" and that she objected to the right-wing populist politics of
Begijnhof 18
PVV (Party for Freedom) leader Geert Wilders (interview with Beathe Nielsen, app. 1).
Nevertheless, one of the women expressed some objections against the use of the
Wooden House as a centre for migrants, arguing that such activities could also take
place elsewhere (interview with Linde Gruijter, app. 2). As a reason for her objections,
she named that "the immigrants do not respect the place". While she mentioned
littering as an example of such lacking respect, the answers remained vague; we thus got
the impression that she was expressing more of a lingering unease with the presence of
outsiders in the Begijnhof.
From our interviews, we find that most residents reacted with reservation up to
outward rejection to the presence of a migrant counselling centre in the Begijnhof. All of
our subjects stressed that they did not interact with the migrants. While they defended
or justified this behaviour, we could not get clear explanations about tensions with the
migrants.
The Presence of Tourists
To the uninformed visitor of the Begijnhof, the tourists are much more conspicuous
than the migrants. In our interviews, however, enquiries about their presence caused
much less of a stir than questions about the latter. This is in particular surprising since
the tourists are reported to behave in a much more intrusive manner.
Our two interview partners reported opposite reactions to the presence of
tourists. While one of them said that she "used to talk to the tourists", but stopped after
less friendly encounters with some of them (interview with Beathe Nielsen, app. 1), the
other reported that she used to regard them as "intruders", but developed a more
relaxed attitude over time (interview with Linde Gruijter, app. 2).
The tourists were described as "annoying" by both of our interviewees, a claim
that was illustrated with anecdotes. For instance, one of our subjects reported tourists to
Begijnhof 19
have ascended the stairs of her house and to have made photographs through her
windows (interview with Beathe Nielsen, app. 1). Despite these claims, the tone in which
these accusations were brought forward was much less agitated than that used in
conversations about the immigrants, indicating that the tourists, despite their
"annoying" behaviours, are judged more positively and perceived as less of a "problem".
The Begijnhof Community
Against our expectations, we found the Begijnhof community to be less close-knit than
presumed. When asked about our first interviewee, the second one did not know her
(interview with Linde Gruijter, app. 2). The other interviewee also claimed that there
were few interactions among the residents (interview with Beathe Nielsen, app. 1), and
both mentioned to be in frequent contact with only a hand full of other residents. While
this may be due to the self-described mentality of both interviewees as relatively
reclusive, it is still a surprising finding.
In a preliminary interview with on of our subjects, Beathe Nielsen, we were also
alerted to an issue that seems to have caused controversy among residents. As she
reported, one woman was living in the Begijnhof with a child, a noteworthy exception
among the population of unmarried women.
DISCUSSION
The Begijnhof lends itself for the study of glocalisation because here, the simultaneity of
global and local tendencies is particularly salient. The courtyard itself is a historically
preserved complex, and its residents are deeply locally rooted, with many living in the
Begijnhof since several decades. This is the 'local' component.
On the other hand, the Begijnhof attracts large numbers of visitors. We discern
two distinct groups of transnationals: tourists and (illegal) immigrants. Both groups are
regularly present in the Begijnhof. This is the 'global' component.
Begijnhof 20
The presence of both local residents and 'global' tourists and migrants is an effect
of glocalisation. Indeed, it is well-suited to illustrate Robertson's (1997)
conceptualisation of glocalisation as the “simultaneity – the co-presence – of both
universalizing and particularizing tendencies”.
Following Roudometof (2005), we can discern transnational social spheres,
transnational fields, and transnational communities. Transnational social spheres are
created whenever people engage in transnational interactions in their day-to-day life,
whereas transnational fields necessitate a notion of formal, long-term relationships in
these interactions. However, on both these layers, the actors themselves need not be
transnationals.
We have mostly focused our analysis on the third layer of transnationalism
proposed by Roudometof (2005), that of transnational networks or communities. These
are “groups of people who live across borders”. Clearly, the migrants who frequent the
Wooden House are part of transnational communities. In addition, we also treat the
tourists visiting the Begijnhof as transnationals, as people living across borders.
Encounters with Transnationalism
The main question of our research was how the residents of the Begijnhof react to their
encounter with transnationalism, and especially with tourists and migrants. Here, we
employ Roudometof's (2005) theory that identifies two antipodes, 'local' and
'cosmopolitans'.
From our interviews, we can identify three attitudes among Begijnhof residents:
their attitude toward the migrants frequenting the Wooden House, their attitude
towards the tourists, and their attitude towards the residents' community. While this is
not as detailed as Roudometof's (2005) conceptualisation, it allows us to locate our
subjects somewhere on the local/cosmopolitan continuum.
The attitudes Begijnhof residents expressed about the migrants were generally
negative. They were seen as disrespectful towards the locality and explicitly marked as
outsiders. None of the residents we interviewed was in contact with the migrants, and
indeed some expressed that they did not want to be associated with them.
Attitudes residents expressed about the tourists were less vitriolic than those
about the migrants; but nevertheless tourists were perceived as an “annoyance”. This is
Begijnhof 21
illustrated by anecdotes and our own observations of rule infractions by tourists (which
were notably lacking in the case of the migrants). The residents seem to try to
encapsulate themselves from the tourists, which is also illustrated by the atypically
closed curtains we observed.
Prior to our observations, we presumed a tight-knit community among the
residents of the Begijnhof. In our interviews, however, this was not substantiated; the
interviewees reported to have contact with only a handful of other residents. Our
observations, however, show well-functioning community; likely, our interviewees were
not representative of the Begijnhof population.
Taking together these attitudes towards migrants, tourists and the Begijnhof
community, we can attempt to locate our interviewees on the local/cosmopolitan
continuum. Negative attitudes about migrants and tourists clearly point towards an
identification as 'local'. While this is not supported by the stated relationships our
interviewees maintain within the Begijnhof community – which let them appear
generally withdrawn – we can assume that most residents are more strongly attached to
the locality and community of the Begijnhof, placing them solidly on the 'local' side of
the continuum.
Differential Treatment of Transnationals
The differences in the attitudes interviewees expressed about tourists and migrants,
however, should alert us to the fact that different facets of transnationalism might well
be treated differently: the attitude formed by the encounter with transnationalism is not
one-dimensional.
If we recollect Bauman's (1998) slogan “Green light for the tourists, red light for
the vagabonds”, we can see how this applies to the two groups of transnationals
identified in our study (where our migrants are Bauman's “vagabonds”).
The green light/red light dichotomy indeed describes well the different paths that
the two groups of transnationals have taken to reach the Netherlands, and the
Begijnhof. While the tourists are free to travel across borders ('green light'), the
migrants have crossed borders illegally ('red light').
With Hannerz (1990), we earlier identified tourists with cosmopolitanism and
migrants with transnationalism. This differential treatment is indeed what we observe
Begijnhof 22
in our study: although residents more easily recollect examples of tension with tourists,
their reported unease is much greater with the migrants.
As Bauman (1998) points out, social mobility across borders is a form of social
capital that is highly unequally distributed across classes and across individuals. Indeed,
we find this unequal treatment to be perpetuated in the attitudes 'locals' hold towards
tourists and (illegal) migrants.
REFERENCES
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The Human Consequences. London, UK: Polity
Press.
Beck, U. (2002). The Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies. Theory, Culture and
Society, 19(1–2), 17–44.
Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture. In Mike Featherstone
(ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity, pp. 237–52.
London, UK: Sage.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Micro-Globalization: Toward a Theory of Social Globalization.
Presented at the annual meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society,
Philadelphia, PA, 28 February–1 March.
Kraidy, M. (1999). The global, the local, and the hybrid: A native ethnography of
glocalization. Critical Studies In Mass Communication, 16(4), 456-476.
Levitt, P. & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational
Social Field Perspective on Society. International Migration Review, 38(3),
1002-1039.
Miller, C. C. & Stone, B. (2009, April 12). ‘Hyperlocal’ Web Sites Deliver News Without
Newspapers. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
Begijnhof 23
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/technology/start-ups/13hyperlocal.html
Phillips, T. (2002). Imagined Communities and Self-Identity: An Exploratory
Quantitative Study. Sociology, 36(3), 597–617.
Robertson, R. 1997. Comments on the ‘global triad’ and glocalisation. In N. Inoue (ed.),
Globalisation and indigenous culture, 217–225. Tokyo, Japan: Kokugakuin
University Institute for Japanese Cultural Classics. Retrieved from:
http://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/global/15robertson.html
Roudometof, V. (2005). Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization. Current
Sociology, 53(1), 113-135.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Interview with Beathe Nielsen
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The interview was conducted in Dutch and later translated into English for inclusion in
this paper.
Eline talked to a younger woman who reacted enthusiastic when she heard that we
were from the University from Amsterdam, as she worked there herself. We agreed on
an interview at a later date. When we came and rang the bell at the discussed time,
nobody answered the door and we were afraid for a split second that she had changed
her mind but then she showed up after five minutes, late from work. We entered her
house, which was small but lovely decorated in an old-Dutch fashion. Beathe was
really friendly, maybe a bit too friendly, she talked about work and her nieces while
making us tea. When we sat done Eline, who did the interview, needed to first calm her
down a bit, so she would not just talk all the time.
Good morning, could you maybe first of all introduce yourself?
Begijnhof 24
Yes sure, my name is Beathe Nielsen, I am 51 summers old and I live here since 2009. I work in the university library on the Spui. I moved here after my husband died of cancer in the fall of 2008, I could not live in my old house anymore, all those memories… I heard from a family friend that there was a house free in the Begijnhof and because I have also loved the place and it is close to my work I decided to move.
How do you like living here?For so far, it has been really nice. It has of course, as any other place, it advantages and disadvantages. I like for example the possibility to escape the daily hastiness and be in such a pure and beautiful place. However, sometimes it would be nice to have so more space. The houses are, as you can see, quite small, and because you also live in such a tight community, I sometimes have the urge to just move to the countryside.
How do you feel about living in a place where so many people come?I would love to be able to say that it does not bother me at all, because you obviously choose to live in a tourist attraction. Before I moved here, some friends said to me that I would like the place for two years, but that after those two years I would only see all those ‘intruders’. They were right to some degree. In the first three years they did not bother me at all, I even had the habit to talk to some of them. But now they annoy me sometimes, all those strange people in front of your house, lurking inside your windows. The Americans are the most brutal, they make a lot of noise and I even found once one of them on the top of my stairs (Beathe lives in a house that has to be entered, as many other houses in Amsterdam, via a small stairs that led to the main entrance) taking pictures from my interior. I was furious.
Has the amount of tourism increased?Mmh.. that is a hard question. I would not know, I do not live here long enough to have a sufficient answer. What you do see by the way is of course a larger amount of tourist in the summer, but that is understandable, isn’t it?
Do you know immigrants come here and have you ever talked to them?Yes of course I know that, but I have nothing to do with them. They come here to a project founded by both churches and I have nothing to do with either one of them. I also never talk to them, not that I am a racist or anything! I mean, I vote PvDA (a left wing party in the Netherlands) I really do not like those racist remarks of Geert Wilders. It is just that, well what can I say to them? They are illegal here, have maybe lived in some really uncomfortable circumstances. Why would they need such a old, useless lady as me (nervous laugh)?
Do you spend time in the courtyard?Uhm not much, especially not before six. (at six o’ clock the doors close and no other people than the residents are allowed to enter of leave the hof) Sometimes, when the weather is nice, I read my paper in the courtyard. But I also work, he, so when I come back from my work I do not really feel like socializing with the others.
Do you know your neighbors well? Do you have social activities together?
Begijnhof 25
To be quite honest, I do not know them all as good. Most women, especially the older ones are really reserved. So I sometimes have dinner with four or five other women that live here. Mmh I do not know if I should say this… but most ladies here are a bit boring. They do not work and they complain about everything. I have been married once, and I know what it is to be loved, but a lot of these women have never been married and have never had children. I think they are a bit grumpy. Mh maybe I should now have said that.. It is not that I do not like them, we just do not have a lot in common, let’s put it that way!
Do you go to church here?No, I do not. I still visit the church I also went to before I lived here. In that church I married and said goodbye from my husband and that will also be the place where people will say there last words about me. Only some women visit the church here. It is not that we are all super religious or anything. Things have changed around here. If we would live according to the old customs, he (pointing to Vassilis) could not be here for example, for you are not allowed to bring male visitors inside your house. So things have obviously changed for the better.
Appendix 2: Interview with Linde Gruijter
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The interview was conducted in Dutch and translated into English for inclusion in this
paper.
We saw a relatively young woman, and as we succeeded last time with a more
younger woman, we tried it again this time, and again we had success. The lady was
willing to give a brief interview in her house right away. Linda lived in a larger house
than Beathe, when we asked if she knew Beathe she told us that she did not know her.
How long do you live here?I now live here almost fifteen years. I first lived in a nunnery in Drente, but I found the environment there after a while no longer positive. I heard from somebody else who lived there about the begijnhof and it sounded nice. Some more freedom and also in the center of Amsterdam. The city where is was born, so I contacted the head of the resident’s counsel and I was very luckily, there was an available spot.
How do you like living here?Yes I do, although I really needed to get used to the city again after I just moved in. I was used to a calm and peaceful surrounding, and suddenly I found myself if the middle of Amsterdam. I also had to get used to all those tourist that come here so often. I the beginning I was very reluctant, I saw that as intruders that came to intrude my private place. I was really fed up with it, and I almost wanted to move, but then I talk
Begijnhof 26
to one of the residents here and she told me that I needed to change my perspective. Instead of seeing them as foreigners I should see them people who admire and respect our beautiful living area. That helped, since then I just ignore them and they do not bother me any longer.
Has the amount of tourism increased?Yes it definitely has, there are especially more Chinese people nowadays. They come in such a large groups and the make pictures of absolutely everything! I also think that nowadays more tour guides and more books mention the name, so more people now what and where it is.
Do you know when they put up the bars / why did they do it?Uhm, when I came here they were already there, although they did replace them for newer ones
Do you know immigrants come here? Have you ever talked to them?Oh you mean the people that go to the wooden house? Yes of course I know them, although I never talk to them. To be quite honest, I do not really understand why they come here? I mean, I am religious woman and I also believe in helping others? But why do we have to help these people in the oldest house of Amsterdam? Why can’t we help them in such a center for immigrants? I mean, I really think they need help, but I just think that they do not respect the place they are placed in, that is all.
Do you spend time in the courtyard?No, not much.
Do you know your neighbors well? Do you have social activities together?Not much, I am not really a social person. I know that some people do have social interaction with each other, but I do not really have the need to mingle with these activities. I like to read, and I watch lingo and the Pauw and Witteman (both Dutch TV shows) every evening. And I have my two cats, so I do not need any more company.
Do you go to church here?Yes I do, I go to the hidden church, I like the place, it is close to my house and the masses are frequently and nice.