Search

Following the so‐called refugee crisis, unaccompanied refugee minors (URMs) from Eritrea were portrayed negatively in Europe. Although such portrayals are often amplified by media and policy discourses, the main reasons for this negative view were a lack of understanding of URMs’ subjectivities, the institutional silencing process they face in their everyday lives, and the ways they show agency in such precarity. This article addresses institutional silencing practices that Eritrean URMs encounter and the various ways they engage with them. Using data gathered during 2016–2018 from Eritrean URMs in the Netherlands, we explore how participants navigate the exclusionary processes they encounter in relation to institutions, such as refugee reception centres, refugee protection organizations, immigration authorities, and schools. Inspired by Sherry Ortner’s and Saba Mahmood’s work, we show the importance of less dominant forms of agency (delayed or docile forms) in how URMs engage with the power of institutional silencing practices. We then show the (often unseen) agency of these young people as the desire of the “less powerful” or “less resourceful” to “play their own serious games even as more powerful parties seek to devalue and even destroy them” (Ortner, 2006, p. 147).

Explicit racism’s increased presence in Dutch public space did not lead to public recognition of the existence of structural forms of racism in the Netherlands until recently. Previously, I argued this denial was historically rooted in the construction of the Dutch self-image as charitable and open versus the framing of migrants as “weak”, “disadvantaged” others who need help from the majority group. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement changed this denial of structural racism in the Netherlands. Never before have structural forms of racism been addressed so widely and cross-racially in the Dutch public space and within institutions. Additionally, awareness of structural racism is growing among non-White young professionals, who previously thought their exclusion from or marginalisation within Dutch society was due to personal inability and lack of strategies to “adapt”. The increasing calls against institutional racism in the Netherlands mean unsettling the status quo and creating inclusionary spaces and practices.

Personal networks can be both enabling and constraining in inclusion practices. This study focuses on the contribution of a particular neighborhood initiative for refugees in Amsterdam. Earlier studies have shown that in the specific context of the Netherlands' welfare state, institutional or citizen initiatives can constrain the actual inclusion of refugees. These studies argue that good intentions do not necessarily lead to inclusion because hierarchal relations reproduce subtle exclusionary structures that limit refugees' inclusion as equals. Yet, building social contacts with locals is essential for inclusion. This article shows the simultaneous presence of inclusion and exclusion by engaging with narratives from Syrian refugees participating in a six‐month housing project initiated in an Amsterdam neighborhood. Residents and volunteers shared responsibilities for organizing daily life in the project. The result was an unexpected combination of Granovetter's weak and strong ties, what we call "hybrid ties", that were embedded within neighborhood dynamics and networks. Despite occasional clashes in expectations, this community‐based housing project enabled specific forms of personal relationships (through hybrid ties) that were essential in refugee participants' later inclusion in the Netherlands.

Personal networks can be both enabling and constraining in inclusion practices. This study focuses on the contribution of a particular neighborhood initiative for refugees in Amsterdam. Earlier studies have shown that in the specific context of the Netherlands’ welfare state, institutional or citizen initiatives can constrain the actual inclusion of refugees. These studies argue that good intentions do not necessarily lead to inclusion because hierarchal relations reproduce subtle exclusionary structures that limit refugees’ inclusion as equals. Yet, building social contacts with locals is essential for inclusion. This article shows the simultaneous presence of inclusion and exclusion by engaging with narratives from Syrian refugees participating in a six‐month housing project initiated in an Amsterdam neighborhood. Residents and volunteers shared responsibilities for organizing daily life in the project. The result was an unexpected combination of Granovetter’s weak and strong ties, what we call “hybrid ties,” that were embedded within neighborhood dynamics and networks. Despite occasional clashes in expectations, this community‐based housing project enabled specific forms of personal relationships (through hybrid ties) that were essential in refugee participants’ later inclusion in the Netherlands.