Verkuyten Et Al 3rd Generation South Moluccans in NL_The Nature of Ethnic Identity

8/11/2019 Verkuyten Et Al 3rd Generation South Moluccans in NL_The Nature of Ethnic Identity

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]On: 21 April 2013, At: 06:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

Thirdgeneration South Moluccans in the Netherlands:

The nature of ethnic identityMaykel Verkuyten

a, Sofie van de Calseijde

b& Wieger de Leur

b

aDepartment of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht,

NL 3584 CS, The Netherlands E-mail:bDepartment of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht,

NL 3584 CS, The Netherlands

Version of record first published: 30 Jun 2010.

To cite this article:Maykel Verkuyten , Sofie van de Calseijde & Wieger de Leur (1999): Thirdgeneration South Moluccans

in the Netherlands: The nature of ethnic identity, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25:1, 63-79

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976672

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to

anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976672http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1999.9976672http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20


2/18

Journal of Ethnie and Migration Studies Vol. 25 N o. 1: 63-79 Jan uary 1999

Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands:

the nature of ethnic identity

Maykel Verkuyten, Sofie van de Calseijde and Wieger de Leur

Abstract Frederic Barth recomm ended taking what people themselves think and

believe as the starting point for an analysis of ethnicity. As the concept of thinking used

by Barth was rather underdeveloped and limited,his central idea of boundary construc-

tion and maintenance being problematic

is

interpreted here as the need to focus on a

broader, more argumentative notion of ordinary thinking. This results in a notion that

keeps Barth's emphasis on everyday interaction but focuses on what people actually say,

how they say it, and that exam ines ideological effects. Ethnic minority identity among

third-generation South Moluccans living in the Netherlands is examined in terms of the

diversity of comparisons and distinctions which are made and the way they are

accounted for. An outline is presented of how the interviewees define 'real' Moluccans,

differentiate themselves from the Dutch and define themselves in opposition to other

ethnic minority groups.

The literature on ethnicity and ethnic identity is extensive. Current thinking on

ethnic identity, however, stems to a great extent from the seminal text by Barth

(1969). This text remains one of the central frameworks for studying ethnic

identity (Jenkins 1994; Verm eulen a nd Govers 1994). Barth redirected the then

dominant focus on the cultural content of ethnicity to the social organisation of

cultural differences. He emphasised the social processes which (re)produce

boundaries of identification and differentiation between collectivities. Barth

treated ethnic identities as emergent and problematic properties of everyday life.

The actual practices whereby ethnicity and ethnic boundaries are situationally

constructed - such as in routine public interactions, labour market relations and

legal classifications - became key issues of research (Jenkins 1994; Nagel 1994).

Barth's starting point was what people themselves believe and think, and how,

in the course of their interaction, they define their ethnic identity: 'ethnic group s

are categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves' (Barth

1969: 10). He attached great importance to the ideas a nd thoug hts of those

concerned. However, Barth's views of these thoughts were not very elaborate

because he saw the perceived outcomes of interaction as the main modulator of

ethnic identity. To him, thinking involved p redom inantly the calculation of costs

and benefits, or advantages and disadvantages. However, the notion of

boundary suggests contestability whereby ethnic distinctions depend on claims

that are seen as acceptable and justified (Ullah 1990; Verkuyten 1997a). Ethnic

identity is not self-evident but involves arguments about diacritical features

which define the boundaries between groups. Hence, Barth's central idea that

boundary construction and maintenance is problematic can be interpreted as the

need to focus on a broader conception of thinking. This would keep Barth's

emphasis on everyday interaction and thus go beyond individual consciousness

1369-183X/99/010063-17 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd.


3/18

64 M. Verku yten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

(Cohen 1994). It would also be a conception that pays close attention to what

people actually say, how they say it, and that examines ideological effects.

Thinking as argumentation

Billig (1987) argues that e veryda y thinking is not a w ordless process b ut a social

activity to be found in discussion and argumentation. In contrast to the idea of

thinking as an inner psychological process or calculation underlying talk, he

stresses the rhetorical or argum entative n ature of thinking. People not only make

ethnic distinctions and give definitions, they also account for them. Billig does

not use th e word 'rhetoric' in a denig ratory sense but sees it as a core feature of

common sense. According to him, rhetoric should not be confined to obviously

argumentative communication but rather be recognised as a pervasive feature

of the way people interact and arrive at understanding. The activities of

justification and criticism are seen as the central rhetorical elements of ordinary

thinking.

The emphasis on rhetoric draws attention to the fact that constructions are

made for making an argument or claim, and are thus fabricated against alterna-

tives. For examp le, categorisation is inheren tly con troversial because one w ay of

categorising can always be challenged by an alternative. Therefore, the choice of

a category for

self-

or group-definitions is part of an argument to be defended

- actually or potentially - against alternative constructions. A particular

definition implies justifying one's position and criticising the counter-position:

argumentation is part and parcel of categorisations (Edwards 1991).

Rhetorical thinking is predominantly common-sensical thinking because in

making claims and arguments speakers draw upon socially shared notions.

Justifications and criticisms are constructed upon commonplaces which, for

example, express values and which function as truisms in argumentation (Billig

1987). These notions, such as c ulture, equality and freedom, p rov ide the flexible

ideological resources for thinking about everyday life. A relationship between

ethnicity and ideology is proposed by most writers. For example, ethnicity is

defined by some in terms of an ideology of shared culture and common descent

(e.g. Cornell 1996; Roosens 1994). How ever, ideology can be un derstood in many

different ways (e.g. Purvis a nd Hu nt 1993; Thom pson 1984). It can be conceptu-

alised in a formal intellectual way whereby the focus is on a more or less

coherent set of beliefs or systematic philosophy that is part of the institutional

and political organisation of modern societies. It can also be understood,

however, in terms of a lived ideology that refers to the non-formalised values

and beliefs typical of everyday thinking in a particular culture (Billig et al. 1988;

Eriksen 1993).

One of the advantages of the latter approach is that the constructivist and

reflexive capacities of people are acknowledged and that thinking is not re-

garded as determined and directed by a dominant ideology. Ideological themes

are seen as rooted in everyday thinking and used in constructing identities and

specific versions of reality. They are the principal resources or building blocks

for presenting constructions and accounts as self-evident and acceptable. These

resources have a contingent history and in this respect 'the patterns of history

will flow through the discourse of everyday thought, and by using these

resources individuals are not merely partaking of the

sensus

of their com mu nity

but are linking themselves to its history' (Billig and Sabucedo 1994: 126).


4/18

Third-generation South Mo luccans in the Netherlands 65

Language has increasingly been regarded as the main location of ideology.

The traditional conception of ideology in terms of consciousness has increasingly

been replaced by the study of everyday discourse (Eagleton 1994). The discur-

sive study of ideology examines how distinctions and versions of reality are

constructed and legitimised. The primary interest is in the discursive practices

and resources that people use to justify their versions and accounts of the social

world and to criticise those of others. So a focus on rhetorics and ideology

implies a focus on talk. For Billig, the utterances people produce are the

thoughts which means that what they think can be examined by analysing their

discourses.

1

To the extent that ethnic identities and category definitions are a

matter of thought and debate, a focus on the way people talk is therefore

appropriate. It it possible to study how the method of discursive construction

creates a specific definition and subjectivity of oneself as well as of those defined

as others, together with the arguments involved. In the present study among

third-generation Moluccans living in the Ne therland s, ethnic minority identity is

examined in terms of the diversity of comparisons and distinctions and the way

they are accounted for.

Distinctions and relationships

When comparisons and distinctions are made there are at least two aspects

involved. First, there is the question of reference selection or the groups that are

being used for defining ethnic identity. Second, there is the question of how

category relations are defined and justified.

The first aspect concerns the familiar idea that ethnic identity is relational, that

is,

dependent on comparisons and distinctions. Identity refers to what people

conceive themselves to be in a specific context, or to which category they belong.

This intrinsically implies a conception of those to wh om one does not belong: to

be 'us' one needs those who are 'not us'. But for making social comparisons it

has to be decided which other group of the many available should be chosen as

a com parison other. Pettigrew (1978) claims that the ran ge of potential com pari-

sons is very restricted in an intergroup context. He also argues that reference

groups tend to be reciprocally paired, for example white-black, native-immi-

grant, and majority-minority. Many studies implicitly follow this model by

considering only two groups at a time while regarding third groups as possible

alternatives for comparison only. For example, studies that focus on the (social)

psychological consequences of a lower status position and the relative power-

lessness of ethnic minority groups implicitly assume that the dominant or

majority group is the only really significant comparison group in society.

However, interpreting ethnic minority identity in terms of status implies a

restriction of the possible comparisons that can be made in defining ethnic

identity. Taylor, Moghaddam and Bellerose (1989) argue that multiple compari-

sons are possible and they show that such comparisons are actually made by

Anglophones in Quebec. There is often a variety of groups in relation to which

ethnic minorities define their own identity (Verkuyten 1997a). Hence, in order to

understand the representation of ethnic identity, it seems necessary to examine

the significance of different groups to the individual.

The second aspect concerns the idea that category relations may take many

different forms and should therefore not be seen as self-evidently given. The fact

that people make a distinction between 'us' and 'them' does not imply a


5/18

66 M.

Verkuyten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

preoccupation with the Other. The preoccupation may lie entirely within the

group to which people belong and the differences that exist within this group.

Hence, 'us ' may be defined in relation to a more or less undefined 'them ' or

'not-us' rather than in actual contrast to a specific Other. Ethnic minority grou ps

can be seen as being 'ethnic' from the 'inside' because a common imagined

history , origin and culture is used for self-definition (Hutnik 1991; Roose ns

1994). In additio n, there ma y be a difference b etw een differentiating oneself from

others and defining oneself in opposition to others. Whereas self-definition in

group terms is unavoidably divisive, talking about oneself as an ethnic group

need not be markedly oppositional. For self-definition, a distinction can be m ade

whereby continuity is also emphasised.

History

In order to contextualise our research among Moluccans living in the Nether-

lands , w e need to provide a sh ort historical description. In 1945, two days after

the end of the Japanese occupation of wh at w as then called D utch-India, a gr oup

of nationalist leaders proclaimed the independent Republic of Indonesia. The

Dutch sent troops in order to re-establish control over their colony. They also

enlisted former military from the Royal Dutch Indian Army (KNIL) who had

fought during the war. Among them were many soldiers from the Moluccan

Islands. After Indonesia became independent in 1949 the Dutch government

wanted to demobilise the KNIL. But the government had granted them the right

to be demobilised in the place of their choice. The Moluccans wanted to go to

East-Indonesia, where in 1950 the Republic Maluku Selatan (RMS, the Republic

of the South Moluccans) was proclaimed. The leaders of the RMS wanted to be

independent of Indonesia. In this situation the Indonesian government would

not allow the Moluccan KNIL military to go to East Indonesia. Because the

Moluccans were still in the service of the Dutch government and because of

the delicate political situation, the Du tch governm ent saw no other solution th an

to bring the Moluccan military and their families to the Netherlands. In 1951

aroun d 12,500 people arrived in the Nethe rland s. Because their stay was thoug ht

to be temporary, they were accommodated in separate and more or less isolated

hutted camps spread over the country. They lived in cramped circumstances,

and were not allowed to work. The military were also dismissed from the army,

which made them feel they had been betrayed and left to their own devices

( stank

voor

dank ) by a government and country for which they had risked their

lives and which had promised to take care of them.

A government in exile was established in the Netherlands when in 1963

Soumokil, the leader of the RMS on the Moluccan Island, was arrested by the

Indonesian arm y. In the 1970s some yo ung Moluccans became more radical and

started violent actions by taking hostages and hijacking trains. In the beginning

these actions were directed towards the Indonesian interests in the Netherlands.

Later Dutch people were targeted because the Dutch government did not want

to supp ort th e RMS. And later still the focus w as also on the leaders of the RMS

because they would not do enough to establish a free South Moluccan republic.

The actions left their mark am ong the M oluccans and the Dutch alike. The D utch

government took various measures to improve the situation of the Moluccans,

and many changes occurred in the Moluccans' living conditions and in their

position in society.

2


6/18

Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands

67

The study

The material presented in this article is drawn from 40 in-depth interviews with

third-generation South Moluccans between the ages of 18 and 27 living in

different parts of the Neth erland s. Interviewees w ere located thro ugh contacts of

the researchers and referrals of professional organisations.

3

There were 22 female

interviewees and 19 male interviewees. Twenty-three of the interviewees had a

Moluccan father and mother whereas the other 18 had one Moluccan parent.

Interviewees w ere asked to talk about the ir ethnic affiliations and the ir views o n

their position in Dutch society and society at large. The interviews w ere held by

two of the authors and lasted between on and two hours.

Both interviewers were ethnically Dutch. There is a substantial literature on

the possible effects of ethnic differences on the interaction between interviewer

and interviewees. For example, an ethnic match may lead to an overemphasis of

ethnic identity on ethnicity-related questions whereas non-matching may lead to

an und ere m ph asis of ethnicity (e.g. Cam pbell 1981). These and other effects ha ve

also been examined in the Netherlands (e.g. Meloen and Veenman 1990) but

there is no clear conclusion because both matching and non-matching have their

specific pros and cons. Moreover, we are not claiming to represent the 'real

views' of third-generation Moluccans in the Netherlands. Our sample is restric-

ted and this was not our aim. Rather, it was to examine the differing identity

constructions and arguments that can emerge and to specify their ideological

effects. The focus is on how social categories may be discursively constructed or

how ethnic identity is defined.

The interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed. The material was

studied as an entire discursive account to be able to examine whether some

recurring definitions and constructions can be discerned and delineated. The

entire body of transcripts was read and all instances of terms referring to ethnic

groups were marked. In further reading, all these instances were analysed in

terms of varying ways in which ethnic categories were constructed and repre-

sented. Attention was focused on the discourses that are being used to achieve

and sustain specific categorical representations.

Extracts of the discussions will be used to make more general theoretical

points about category constructions and ethnic identity. One difficulty in citing

extracts is that they are removed from the context of the interview. This is

especially problematic if one wants to study the way in which utterances are

doing conversational work among speakers, in particular as responses to inter-

view questions. However, the main focus of the present article is to show how

ethnic identity can be constructed and characterised rather than with the

interactive work that is being done.

Moluccans

Boundaries and the nature of identities are defined by making comparisons and

arguing about them. In the interviews different forms of comparisons with their

specific arguments were presented to construct a particular and distinctive

ethnic identity. Three types of comparison predominated: comparisons within

the group of Moluccans, with the Dutch and with foreigners.


7/18

68 M. Verkuy ten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

Generations and politics

All interviewees but four defined themselves (in part) as Moluccans and

indicated that they were proud of being Moluccan. This feeling of pride was

related not only to the Moluccan culture but also to the political history. Being

Moluccan was said to be important, and considered as something valuable and

emotionally positive, because of the unique Moluccan culture and the history of

political struggle and endurance.

For all interviewees the issue of the RMS was a topic which cannot be ignored

(Steijlen 1996). It is so much part of Moluccan history that everyone faces the

question what it means for themselves and the group of Moluccans. Three

interviewees indicated that the RMS was central in their lives, and that they fully

supported the idea of a Moluccan state and were prepared to fight for it. The

other interviewees argued that they no longer believed in the old political RMS

ideal of a return to an indep ende nt S outh Moluccan stale. For them the RMS and

the annu al mem orial of the declaration of independ ence of 1950 held o n 25 Ap ril

in The Hague had no strong political significance but predominantly meant a

feeling of unity and be longing to one peo ple. In justifying their view on the RMS

these interviewees made a distinction between generations and also drew on the

principle /practice dichotomy (Wetherell, Stiven and Potter 1987). The following

extracts are three examples.

On the one hand it is very important because my grandm a and granddad strongly believed

in it and m y parents probably still believe in it somehow. They were very mu ch in favour

of it and would probably have wanted to die for it, but looking at it from a rational

viewp oint now I don 't think it's feasible, really. It just isn't possible, it just isn't realistic. No ,

I can't imagine how anyone could make it happen. No, for the moment I'm not really for

it. (male, 20 years old)

The RMS is a lost cause. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think it's any use. Of course you

should show respect for what your parents fought for, but I don't think you should start

fighting for it again. It's no longer realistic to do so. (male, 18 years old)

Looking back to what happened in the Hague on April 25, it seems they always need to

demolish something, and then they blame the RMS. Or they parrot their grandma and

granddad, and say say things like, Yes, the Dutch have deceived us . I think that's a bit

short-sighted, really. Of course that's the case but on the other hand people don't go on and

on about the role of the Germans [in World War II], either. We are here now and we should

either stay here or go back, and no more bullshit, (male, 22 years old)

First, there was a differentiation from the first and second generation and the

generation-gap provided a justification for a given view. The ideal of the RMS

was presented as something of the previous generations in particular. As one

interviewee put it, 'Of course I'm a third-generation Moluccan, and I feel

differently about it. I don't really feel the need to go back, for instance'. Most

interviewees defined their situation within the Dutch context (see the third

extract above). They emphasised that they lived in the Netherlands and that

their future w as in this country. Althoug h they acknow ledged the imp ortance of

the RMS, this definition implies a different stance toward s the ideal of an RMS

than the one maintained by previous generations. However, there was also a

clear continuation w ith these generations. The political struggle an d hardsh ips of

these generations provided an important means of affirming a close connection.

Second, as can be seen in the first two extracts the argumentation was

structured around the principle/practice dichotomy. Principal considerations

can always be countered by practical ones and vice versa. All interviewees


8/18

Third-generation South M oluccans in the Netherlands

69

agreed that the past had been full of injustices but nevertheless most of them

moderated the conclusions drawn from these historical misdoings. They argued

that it may be justified and good to keep the ideal of the RMS in principle but

it also has to be feasible and useful in the Netherlands. In this rhetorical

construction the principle of the RMS is acknowledged but at the same time

defined as unworkable and emotional. Hence, this construction formulates a

contin uity but also pro vide s a justification for differentiation.

Real Moluccans

A major distinction that was made within the Moluccan group evolved around

the question what it really means to be Moluccan and how this group should be

characterised. The interviewees talked about 'real' Moluccans, thus defining the

essence of the category and, by implication, constructing a group of 'less real'

Moluccans. For making this distinction three closely related discourses were

used, referring to issues of race, culture, and language.

4

First, all interviewees made a distinction one time or another between what

they called 'full-blooded' or 'real' Moluccans and 'half-breeds'. Thus the essence

of the category of Moluccans was defined in racial and biological terms. Real

Moluccans are born to two Moluccan parents, and they were clearly evaluated

more positively than those who were only 'half Moluccan. All 'mixed-race'

interviewees indicated that they either felt or had felt inferior. Or as one of them

pu t it, 'I used to feel a bit inferior, because they w ere real M oluccans, and I wa s

part Moluccan and part Dutch', and another interviewee said, There are times

wh en I can sense that they're thinking, you 're not a real Moluccan, you 're only

a half-caste '. Hence, in the interviews th e em phasis w as on being

half

Moluccan and not on being 'half Dutch which was not considered a positive

thing. This evaluative distinction is different from what has been described in

the USA and the UK in terms of desired whiteness whereby 'mixed-race' people

try to increase the distance betw een themselves and blackness (e.g. G ordo n 1995;

Tizard and Phoenix 1993). However, these reactions should probably be under-

stood in their historical and political context. Using the particular history of the

Moluccans to define the g roup in a positive w ay has a n influence on the po sition

and status of 'mixed-race' people.

Second, boundaries that are understood as biological in substance often carry

the ideas of impurity and contamination, as personified by the 'mixed-race'

people (Frankenberg 1993). However, explicit concerns about racial purity are

problematic because they are widely seen as 'racist'. Because of these racist

connotations most interviewees, although talking in terms of half-breeds, re-

jected traditional concerns about racial purity but invoked the ideology of

cultural identity and maintenance. That is, racial crossing and 'mixed-race'

children were not presented as threatening the 'Moluccan race' but as

threatening Moluccan culture and the continuity of traditions.

Too many Moluccan youngsters marry Dutch boys and girls, which will increase the

num ber of half-castes. I'm afraid this will mean that w e'll be left w ith totally Dutch children

with a Moluccan surname. That's what you'll get. But I think these youngsters should be

told where their name comes from. This is what we should get into their heads. So that

they, too, will understand that they should pass on their culture. (20 year old male)

The cultural narrative for making distinctions within the Moluccan group


9/18

70 M. Verkuyten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

revolved around several oppositional dichotomies such as traditional versus

modem, and changing versus unchanging. These oppositions were used to make

a distinction between those who are more traditional and those who are more -

what the interviewees called - 'westernised or Dutchified'. This distinction was

partly related to the different generations living in the Netherlands, but it

was also applied to the third generation for defining 'real' and 'less real'

Moluccans.

Two different meanings of Westernisation could be identified in the inter-

views:

a continuous and a discontinuous formulation. First, Westernisation was

presented as an inevitable change whereby there are clear continuities because

aspects of Moluccan culture would not disappear but become mixed up with

modern Dutch culture. The inevitability of these changes was again argued

with the help of the principle/practice dichotomy. It was argued that it may be

all right to keep one's culture in principle but it also has to be useful in the

Netherlands and in the modern world.

However, practical consideration can always be countered by principled ones.

For those favouring cultural maintenance, practical considerations were second-

ary to the moral obligation of preserving the unique Moluccan culture. They

argued that they had an obligation to the first generation in particular but also

to the Moluccans in general. They presented Westernisation not as a change but

as a loss of and break with Moluccan culture. They used a notion of cultures as

incompatible with each other and cultural integration as impossible. The inter-

viewees who described themselves as 'real' Moluccans used an essentialist idea

of Moluccan culture by presenting it as a precious inheritance that should be

transmitted uncontaminated and unweakened (Balibar 1991).

Third, the idea of cultural m aintenance w as closely related to Malay language .

Language was considered the key to Moluccan culture. The issue of language

was brought up in most interviews and was also used independently of race for

defining who and what real Moluccans are.

It's all right for you to say that you're a real Moluccan, but if you don't have a good

command of the language, if you don't speak the language, you're not a real Moluccan to

me .

(27 year old female)

If you don't know the Moluccan language, I think that in any case it's a bit... how shall I

put it .. . you're somehow less of a Moluccan than somebody who can, who can speak

Malay. (24 year old male)

If you can't speak Malay, you're not a real Moluccan. (20 year old male)

So language was presented as a central marker of identity that defines what it

means to be a real Moluccan. The importance of language was also accepted by

the 'mixed-race' interviewees who all said they very much regretted that they

could not speak the M alay language properly. For them not speaking Malay w as

related to feelings of exclusion from the Mo luccan comm unity. '

The Dutch

The distinctions in biological and cultural terms not only have meaning within

the Moluccan group but also in relation to other groups. The ties of common

descent and an ideology of cultural purity provided a vessel for the cultivation

of a distinct identity in relation to others in general, and to the Dutch in

particular.


10/18


71

Talking about Moluccans was almost always related, explicitly or implicitly, to

talking about the Dutch and vice versa. Both groups were represented predom-

inantly in relation to each other. The interview ees differentiated themselve s from

the Dutch but they did not define themselves in opposition to this group. There

are similarities and continuities with the Dutch that have relevance for self and

group definitions. We will first discuss the construction of continuities and then

the construction of differences.

Similarities and continuities

With the exception of two interviewees, who said that they wanted to go and

live on the Moluccan Islands, all others defined their situation and future within

the Netherlands. For them, a move to the Moluccans was no longer an option

because they had settled in the Netherlands and had adapted themselves to the

luxurious Western way of life. In addition, it was argued that third generation

Moluccans are born and bred in the Netherlands, speak Dutch, have Dutch

friends, and are Dutch nationals. Hence, Moluccan identity was defined in the

context of the Netherlands and in relation to the Dutch. There were objective

characteristics, such as a passport and the language, which not only had

instrumental value in society but were also seen as indicative of similarities and

points of contact. Most interviewees said that they w ere D utch although they felt

Moluccan.

5

How ever, it is not only the present b ut also the past that can be used to arg ue

for a relationship. History can be used for constructing continuities between the

Moluccans and the Dutch. An example is provided by the following abstract.

I'm very proud of being a Moluccan. Looking at what has happened since the time of the

United East India Company, considering the long-standing relationship we've had with

the Dutch, considering that I'm now living in the Netherlands ... On the one hand it may

be rotten for us to be here. On the other hand it can be an asset, there certainly are

advantages, especially considering how badly off the other Moluccans back in the Moluccas

are. I always say, Us Moluccans, we are the history of the Netherlands. We are your

history, and you should know about your own history . (20 year old male)

This interviewee is arguing that the history of the Moluccans is inextricably

linked with that of the Dutch. There is a very old relationship between the two

groups, dating back to the seventeenth century. By stressing this historical

relationship a continuity is constructed with the Dutch and with the present

situation in the Netherlands. This historical discourse also implies rights and

claims. After all the Dutch bear great responsibility for the fate of the South

Moluccans and the way they were treated in Indonesia and after arrival in the

Netherlands. This would give the Moluccans a justified claim to a special

position and treatment, in particular in comparison with other minority groups

(see below).

Differences

For arguing that the Moluccans differ from the Dutch, the interviewees used two

kinds of discourse: a cultural and a racial one. First, the differences between the

ethnic Dutch and the Moluccans were predominantly presented in terms of

culture. In everday talk, to say that it is people's culture is to explain their

behaviour, and make it appear less incomprehensible. A cultural argument is


11/18

72 M. Verku yten, S. van de Calseijde and W.de Leur

rhetorically powerful because, first, it appears to be self-evident and obvious,

second, culture may mean many different things, third, culture is thought of as

more than skin deep and therefore as something that really matters, and, fourth,

in the present-day world the right to cultural identity is a powerful, politically

acceptable argument. What is meant by culture is often unclear, while at the

same time its meaning is self-sufficient, not trivial, and an argument in terms of

culture is difficult to challenge (Verkuyten 1997b).

In the interviews, a reified notion of culture was used for arguing and

explaining that there is a difference betwe en M oluccans and Dutch. Much of the

talk was about a piecemeal culture as if there were different objects involved or

different parts which could be handled in various ways. Hence, culture was

turned into a self-evident object linked to ethnicity. Both groups were said to

have their own typical culture that determines people's understandings and

practices. It w as argu ed that Moluccans differ from the Dutch because there are

self-defining cultural differences that should be preserved.

We shouldn't allow our culture to be forgotten because if we do, the children, for instance

those of the fourth generation, will be totally ignorant of our culture, and it will eventually

die out here in the Netherlands. If that happens, we might just as well..., we would be just

like any old Dutch person, basically. (25 year old female)

Claims about another group's culture imply claims about one's own culture. The

claims the interviewees made about the culture of the Dutch not only involved

their ow n culture b ut also affirmed their ow n wa y of life. In this way a lot of

identity work was done in which the Moluccans were presented in a favourable

light. Dutch culture was discussed in relation to Moluccan culture, which

functioned as the standard for comparison and the frame of reference. More

specifically, in those instances where the notion of culture was specified and

elaborated on, Dutch culture was defined aslacking typically Moluccan cultural

elements. The Dutch were said to lack the Moluccan values of respect for the

elderly and close and supportive relationships with (extended) family members

and other Moluccans in general. They were also said to lack the typical

Moluccan hospitality, generosity and interpersonal warmth. Thus, the intervie-

wees created a normative image of their group by using a set of cultural values

to construct the Dutch as different.

Second, a racial discourse was used to argue in favour of the differences

between the Moluccans and the Dutch. It was stressed that Moluccans have

darker skin than the Dutch an d therefore are alw ays visibly different. Or as one

interviewee put it, 'I always do say that I'm a Moluccan, yes, because it's

revealed by the colour of my skin anyway'. In the following extracts two other

interviewees talk about their experiences of being of a different skin colour and

hence being treated differently.

I'm not D utch. 1 may live in the N ether lands , but th e colour of my skin is different. This

is something I can't ignore. (22 year old male)

It's because I have a dark skin, you know . Yes, it's certainly tru e that w e're discriminated

against. Although they say that we are Dutch, we don't really notice that that's the case.


What sets them apart is the colour of their skin, which forms an unbridgeable

gap.

Thus, the boundary delineating Moluccan identity was, at least in part,

racial and thereby closely linked to issues of power. In the second extract this

link is made explicit by the interviewee, who is talking in one and the same


12/18


73

breath about being dark-skinned and experiencing discrimination. The intervie-

wees argued that the existence of discrimination played an important role in

defining them and in constructing a clear boundary between the Moluccans and

the Dutch. Hence, issues of power and dominance were used for understanding

the position of the Moluccans. However, the interviewees indicated that they

also experienced discrimination foreigners rather than as people with a darke r

skin or Moluccans per se.

Foreigners

In the interviews it was argued that the Dutch categorise Moluccans as foreign-

ers.

The Dutch were said to use one broad category for all ethnic minority

groups, ignoring historical and cultural differences, and discriminating against

them all without distinction. Or, as one respondent puts it, 'I have always

noticed that for Dutch people, from early on, that all foreigners are the same,

they're birds of a feather'.

The interviewees, however, rejected the label 'foreigner' as an option for

self-definition. They made a clear and consistent distinction between themselves

and other ethnic minority grou ps in the Nethe rland s. Foreigners were negatively

described in terms such as dirty, lazy and bums, and used as an oppositional

identity. Although shared experiences of discrimination and stigmatisation were

acknowledged, no common identity or common political agenda was accepted.

On the contrary, foreigners were held partly responsible for the discrimination

Moluccans experienced. Their maladjusted behaviour would diminish the

Moluccan s' opportunities in society because the D utch see them all as foreigners.

Examples are provided by the following three extracts.

Moluccans are treated as any other foreigners. Almost all Moluccans will say,

we're

no t

foreigners, we're not immigrants , for if you look back properly, if you read the history

books, you will see that the Moluccans didn't come here to work of anything like that. They

didn't come here of their own accord. On the contrary, they were brought here by the Dutch

government. Well, thaf the difference between them and the foreigners. The foreigners

came here to work and they all came here of their own free will. (24 year old male)

They can't send us away just like that. The others came here voluntarily, but the Dutch

brought us here, promising that we would go back some time. We can't help being here.

And I always defend the Moluccans. I don't want to be compared with the Turks and the

Moroccans, I don't want to be considered an immigrant, because thaf not what we were.


Asylum-seekers who arrive in the Netherlands, refugees who arrive in the Netherlands are

immediately given a house of their own, a television set, a fridge, the lot. Thaf unfair. My

granddad and my father and mother were born in the Moluccas and were put into barracks

here,where they slept with 20 people in one room which also served as a living room and

a kitchen. It makes me w onder. That also plays a role and those asylum seekers ... they've

only been in the Netherlands for two days and they start protesting against the bad

treatment they've been receiving. It makes me wonder... We've been here for almost 47

years and we're still treated badly, and we don't even have the right to become angry. At

a certain moment you acquire a little ..., you start getting a bit angry. Even my mother,

who wh enever she sees a Moroccan or a Turk com plaining on television, says why d on't

you go back to your ow n country? Things were a lot hard er for her, and these people have

only been here for two days and they organise a campaign without even knowing the

language. Look, we've adjusted ourselves. Why can't they? And at a certain moment they'll

do strange things and who will be held accountable? We will. I'm also seen as 'a darkie' and

I think thafs quite difficult, for we're in between. I think so, yes, there are too many of

them. I don't mean to discriminate against anyone - there are good people among the T urks


13/18

74 M. Verkuyten, S. van de Calseijde arid W. de Leur

and Moroccans, too, but that's the way I feel. I just think we've not been done justice. Life

is made difficult for us Moluccans, even though we've been here for 47 years. This is why

I don't agree when a Moroccan person says to me, 'Us foreigners'. I'm not a foreigner, I

don't feel I'm an immigrant. I'm a Moluccan in the Netherlands. (22 year old male)

In all three extracts, the interviewees clearly do not wish to be considered

foreigners, and in particular do not wish to be defined as similar to other

minority gro ups. The interviewees claimed a d istinct position for themselves and

their group. As can be seen in the first two of these extracts, the distinction

between Moluccans and foreigners was predominantly understood and justified

in an immigrant narrative. In this narrative the notion of freedom played a

central role. Freedom is an important ideological principle rooted in the liberal

tradition. Freedom implies that people should not be obliged to do wha t they d o

not want to do. Compulsion is contrary to individual freedom and formulating

something as com pulsory is defining it negatively w ithin a discourse of freedom.

However, the notion of freedom can be interpreted in different ways. Freedom

implies not only self-determination but also responsibility. If people determine

for themselves what they want to do they are also responsible themselves. The

view put forward by the interviewees that foreigners should integrate was

mainly argued on the basis of this notion of responsibility. They have chosen

themselves to come to the Netherlands and as a corollary have to accept the

responsibility of their own choice: integration. But in contrast to the Moluccans

who know the language and have adapted to society despite the fact that they

were brought here, foreigners were said not to (want to) integrate.

It was argued that the Moluccans were brought to the country by the Dutch

government, or as some interviewees pu t it, they were ordered or c ommanded

to come and came on a political basis. Hence, for the interviewees it was the

government's decision and the government made promises that were not kept.

Therefore the Dutch have a moral responsibility and duty toward the Moluc-

cans.

The result is that Moluccans are being presented as a separate group that

has unique claims and rights. The historical political situation would justify a

specific position for the Moluccans and challenges the dominant group's

definition of foreigner.

The immigrant narrative not only involves the reasons for migration but also

the actual arrival in the country. As can be seen in the second extract, the

interviewees invoked an immigrant history in which the first generation had a

ha rd life full of toil and sacrifice an d after m an y year s were still confronted w ith

bad treatment. This narrative of the hardship and struggle after arrival in the

Netherlands was used to draw a clear contrast with foreigners who had come to

this country only recently but were already making claims. In the third extract

above, this is considered unfair because it means unequal treatment. Foreigners

are making claims and are immediately being taken care of whereas Moluccans

had to endure hardship and have been in the country much longer. Hence,

(un)equal treatment was an important principle for understanding the position

of the Moluccans and for claiming a special position for them distinct from that

of foreigners.

In the second and third extract it can be seen that the category of foreigners

wa s sometimes specified b y referring to Turk s and Moroccans. As is common in

the dominant discourse in the Netherlands (Verkuyten, de Jong and Masson

1995), the interviewees considered these two Islamic groups as more or less

paradigma tic examples of foreigners. The Turks and Moroccans were seen as the


14/18

Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 75

prototype s of foreigners. How ever, the difference with these Islamic groups was

not presented in an immigration narrative but in cultural and religious terms, as

in the next extract.

I think that in general, Moluccans have adjusted themselves. I think that's partly because

they have the same religion. After all, most Moluccans are Christians. They've taken over

lots of things from Dutch culture. Moluccan and Dutch values are comparable, which

cannot be said about Moroccan and Turkish groups. As Turks and Moroccans have an

entirely different religion, their values are very different from those of Dutch people and

Moluccan people. I think there's a bigger difference between them. I think that Dutch

people and Turks or Moroccans have more difficulties understanding each other than

Dutch people and Moluccans because Turkish and Moroccan religion and culture are so

different from Moluccan and Dutch religion and culture. (21 year old male)

As can be seen in the extract, the opposition to the Islamic group s wa s also used

to define a similarity with the Dutch. Turks and Moroccans are presented in

contrast to Moluccans and Dutch making the Moluccans similar to the Dutch

and different from other ethnic minorities. We also see here the flexibility of a

cultural discourse. It can be used for making a contrast between Dutch and

Moluccans but in this context it is used for defining a similarity between these

two groups.

Problematical constructions

The main distinctions the interviewees made with their justifications were

presented above. It was shown that arguments play an important role in the

construction of bound aries. How ever, argu me nts over categories and definitions

are potentially inexhaustible because competing constructions are always

possible (Billig 1987). For example, we saw that considerations of principle can

be challenged by practical ones, and that some interviewees argued that past

injustices should not be righted by differential policies, and that the present

situation cannot bear the brunt of historical misdoings. Also a discussion about

ethnicity and cultural differences can be criticised as in the next extract.

Most people take as their starting point ah, how shall I pu t it, an ethnic identity: I am

Moluccan, I am a Turk, I am a Mo roccan etc. But I feel - I 've thou ght ab out this a lot, but

what's essential for every human being is the fact that they're human. And it's the different

customs that create the differences between people. But I feel I should no longer think about

that all the time, saying to

myself,

I cannot yet do this or that very well so I'm not a good

Moluccan . As for a purely Moluccan culture, I don't think there is such a thing. After all,

we've been in contact with other nations through commerce and we've taken over things

from them. (24 year old female)

This interviewee criticises ethnic distinctions and the notion of cultural purity by

using the idea of a common hum anity a nd the history of cultural diffusion.

Earlier in the interview the same interviewee indicated that she felt personally

addressed when others said something negative about Moluccans. And she also

talks in terms of 'we the Moluccans' when she says, T have to say that among

us the ties are closer, more close than am ong the Dutch, the family ties, and we

also have other close ties beside family'. However, in the extract above she

draws upon other ideological resources for questioning the distinctions and

reification she uses

herself.

Although these examples do not represent the

dominant pattern in the interviews, they show that there are always alternative


15/18

76 'M. Verkuyten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

discourses available for challenging ethnie constructions, just as there are

discourses that produce acceptable distinctions.

Conclusions

We have approached ethnie identity from an argumentative perspective. The

impetus came from Barth's recommendation to start an analysis of ethnicity

from what people themselves think and believe. However, as Barth uses a very

underdeveloped and limited conception of thinking, his central idea that

boundary construction and maintenance is problematic was interpreted here as

the need to focus on a broader, more argu me ntative notion of ordinary thinking.

A notion that pays close attention to what people say, how they say it, and that

examines possible ideological effects.

Ethnic minority identity is dep end ent on a range of processes of co nstruction.

In most studies the focus is on actual practices, rituals, institutional arrange-

ments and material circumstances that define social categories. However, there

are at least three reasons for examining discourses when studying ethnic

identity. First, verbal interactions are among the core constitutive aspects of

daily life. It is not only what people actually do that matters but certainly also

what people tell each other, how they describe and define situations and how

they argue about their world. Second, a clear distinction between words and

actions is difficult to sustain. As conversation analysts, among others, have

shown, language not only represents reality but also has a pragmatic dimension

because social actions are performed through utterances.

Third, a focus on discourse brings in the notion of ideology. Much can be said

about the relationship between discourse and ideology (see Purvis and Hunt

1993),

but in general, discursive constructions can be seen as having ideological

effects in fixing relationships and defining them as 'natural' and just (Eagleton

1994).

In the present study, the interviewees tried to define, carve out and

account for a distinctive, essentialist Moluccan identity in relation to different

Moluccans, to the Dutch and to other ethnic minority groups living in the

Netherlands. They justified their distinctions and in doing so implicitly criticised

alternatives. In addition, the relations between categories was discursively

constructed in specific ways. In the interviews, some comparisons were in clear

contrast to other groups that were used as adversaries. In particular, foreigners

were used as an oppositional identity. This group was described in negative

terms and the distancing from them led to the use of negative stereotypes for

portraying this group, for blaming them for diminishing their own opportunities

in society, and also for claiming specific rights.

However, although most interviewees differentiated themselves from the

former generations of Moluccans, they did not define themselves in opposition

to them. There are clear continuities th at hav e impor tance for self-definition,

such as the political history and the parents' immigrant identity. Self-definition

of the interviewees was not in opposition to the Dutch either. The interviewees

presented themselves as culturally different b ut no t as opposed to Dutch people,

although the perception of racism and discrimination played a significant role in

identity construction. Most interviewees defined their situation within the

Ne therland s. They situated their future an d their claims within this country with

which there is a historically old relationship.

This constellation of constructions and definitions functions ideologically


16/18


because it provides a justificatory account of social boundaries and of a separate

and essentialist Moluccan identity. On the one hand, the marginal position of

other ethnic minorities was made acceptable by defining them as foreigners,

which served to underline the Moluccans' claim to a special position. On the

other hand, the ideological consequences of the constructions were to maintain

the Moluccans' challenge and resistance to the dom inant g roup 's definitions a nd

hegemony.

Two somewhat different ideological resources were used in making and

justifying these constructions. First, in defining the essence of the Moluccan

category familiar racial and cultural discourses were used. In arguing for 'real'

Moluccans and exclusive categories, biological justifications were given, and

assumed cultural differences were made natural and absolute. Boundaries were

defined in terms of common descent and an authentic cultural identity in

particular. For minority groups an emphasis on culture and cultural identity is

a produc tive strategy for articulating differences and mak ing claims. In general,

cultural rights are increasingly acknowledged in Western liberal-democratic

societies. People from minority groups have the right to their own culture. The

interviewees conveyed a sense of their cultural uniqueness and integrity for

constructing self-evident differentiations within the group of Moluccans, from

the Dutch and from T urks and M oroccans. This shows that culture is a discourse

with mixed potential that can be interpreted a nd app lied differently in argu me nt

(Verkuyten 1997b).

Second, basic principles of modern liberal-democratic thinking were used in

making distinctions. For example, the value of rationality and realism was used

in distinguishing the third from the first and second generation Moluccans.

However, in making a distinction between Moluccans and foreigners, the

interviewees deployed an immigrant narrative in which the notions of freedom

and equality were used for justification. Thus, elements of the ideology of the

modern Western state were drawn upon for claiming a separate position for

the Moluccans. Although these principles were used self-evidently they were

interpreted in particular ways and considered differently applicable. For

example, freedom was interpreted in terms of responsibility and practical

considerations were mobilised to question an argumentation based on values.

Finally, our focus was on the main arguments that were used for justifying

and criticising one's own definitions and distinctions and those of others.

However, competing constructions are always possible because arguments over

categories and definitions are never exhaustive (Billig 1987). There was an active

and reflective element in what was said and some interviewees made their own

constructions problematic. For example, legitimations of distinctions in terms of

ethnicity and c ultural uniqueness can be challenged by using notions of common

humanity and cultural diffusion. Distinctions that seem self-evident can become

a matter of debate. Hence, boundary construction is an ongoing business

whereby different argumentative resources can be used flexibly for justification

and criticism.

To conclude, the present study has argued for an argumentative approach to

ethnic groups and b ounda ries. Boundaries like culture have increasingly become

a field of disagreement and contest. It is the organisation of diversity that is

considered one of the central issues of the present world (e.g. Hannerz 1992).

This organisation inevitably implies dispute and debate, making it necessary to

pay systematic attention to thinking and argumentation. Hence, a careful analy-


17/18

78 M. Verku yten, S. van de Calseijde and W. de Leur

sis of discourses and arguments in the accounts people give and the disputes

they are involved in, seems a promising addition to the existing literature on

ethnic identity.

Notes

1 This does not mean that Billig denies that silent thinking occurs. Howev er, such thinking is seen

as 'inner speech' that is modelled on outer dialogue.

2 It is estimated that at present there are about 40,000 people of Moluccan origin living in the

Netherlands.

3 Many thank s to Charley Behoekoe Na m Radja an d Selina Haledo from the Moluccan unit of

FORUM. They initiated the research, helped us get in touch with the interviewees, and provided

valuable comments and suggestions.

4 The distinction between 're al' and 'less real' Moluccans was not made in political terms.

The former were not presented as more committed to the Republic Maluku Selatan than the

latter. On the contrary some interviewees said that 'half-breeds' were sometimes more fanatical

than the 'real' Moluccans.

5 Tw o-thirds of the interviewees defined them selves as both Moluccan and Dutch. How ever, being

Moluccan was seen as more emotional whereas being Dutch was considered more superficial.

References

Balibar, E. (1991) 'Is there a neo-racism?' in E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (Eds),

Race, Nation, Class,

London: Verso

Barth, F. (1969) 'Intro duction ', in F. Barth (Ed.),

EthnicGroupsand Boundaries: TheSocial Organizatio

ofCulturalDifference,

London: Allen & Unwin

Billig, M. (1987)

Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology,

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edw ards, M. Gan e, D. Middleton and A. Radley (1988)

IdeologicalD ilemmas:

ASocial Psychology ofEveryday Thinking,

London: Sage

Billig, M. and J. Sabucedo (1994), 'Rhetorical and ideological dimensions of common sense', in

J. Siegfried (Ed.),

The Status ofCommon Sense in Psychology,

Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 121-45

Campbell, B.A. (1981) 'Race-of-interviewer effect among southern adolescents',

Public Opinion

Quarterly,

Vol. 45: 231-44

Cohen, A. P. (1994)

Self Consciousness: An AlternativeAnthropologyof Identity,

London: Routledge

Cornell, S. (1996) The variable ties that bind: content and circumstances in ethnic processes'.

Ethnic

andRacial Studies,

Vol. 19: 265-89

Eagleton, T. (1994)

Ideology,

London: Longman

Edwards, D. (1991) 'Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of

categorization',

Theory and Psychology,

Vol. 1: 515-42

Eriksen, T. H. (1993) 'Formal and informal nationalism',

Ethnic andRacial Studies,

Vol. 16: 1-25

Frankenb erg, R. (1993)

T heSocial Constructionof Whiteness: White Wom en,RaceMatters,

Minneapol

Minn.: University of Minnesota Press

Gordon, L. R. (1995) 'Critical 'mixed race'?'

Social Identities,

Vol. 1: 381-95

Hannerz, U. (1992)

Cultural Complexity: Studies in the SocialOrganization ofMeaning,

New York:

Columbia University Press

Hutnik, N. (1991)

Ethnic Minority Identity: A Social PsychologicalPerspective,

Oxford: Clarendon

Jenkins, R. (1994) 'Rethinking ethnicity: identity, categorization a nd pow er',

Ethnica ndRacialStudies,

Vol. 17: 197-223

Meloen, J.D. and Veenman, J. (1990)

Het is maar de V raag: Onderzoek naarResponseffecten bi j

Minderhedensurveys,

Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande

Nagel, J. (1994) 'Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture',

Social

Problems,V ol. 41: 152-76

Pettigrew, T.F. (1978) Three issues in ethnicity: boundaries, deprivations and perceptions' in J.M.

Yinger and S.J. Cutler (Eds),

MajorSocial Issues:Multidisciplinary Views,

New York: Free Press,

25-49

Purvis, T. and A. Hunt (1993) 'Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology... .',

BritishJournal of Sociology,Vol. 44: 473-99


18/18


Roosens, E. (1994) The primordial nature of origins in migrant ethnicity' in H. Vermeulen and

C. Govers (Eds),Th eAnthropologyo fEthnicity: Beyond EthnicGroups an dBoundaries', Amsterdam:

Spinhuis, 81-104

Steijlen, F. (1996)

RM S: Van ldeaal tot Sym bool. Moluks Nationalisme in N ederland 1951-1994,

Amsterdam: Spinhuis

Taylor, D.M., F.M. Moghadd am and J. Bellerose (1989) 'Social comparison in an in tergrou p context'.

Journal

of

Social Psychology,

Vol. 129: 499-515

Thompson, J.B. (1984)

Studies in the

Theory

of

Ideology, Cambridge: Polity Press

Tizard, B. and Phoenix, A. (1993)Black,

White or Mixed

Race:

Race and Racism in the Lives of Young

Peopleof Mixed

Parentage,

London: Routledge

Ullah, P. (1990) 'Rhetoric and ideology in social identification: the case of second generation Irish

youths'.Discourse

an d

Society,Vol. 1: 167-68

Verkuyten, M. (1997a) 'Discourses of ethnic minority identity', BritishJournal ofSocial Psychology,

Vol. 36: 565-86

Verkuyten, M. (1997b) 'Cultural discourses in the Netherlands: talking about ethnic minorities in the

inner-city', Identities, Vol. 4: 99-132

Verkuyten, M., W. de Jong and K. Masson (1995) The construction of ethnic categories: discourses

of ethnicity in the Netherlands', Ethnic andRacial Studies,Vol. 18: 251-76

Vermeulen, H. and Govers, C. (1994)

Th e

Anthropology

of Ethnicity,

Amsterdam: Spinhuis

Wetherell, M., Stiven, H. and Potter J. (1987) 'Unequal egalitarianism: a preliminary study

of

discourses concerning gender and employment opportunities',BritishJournal ofSocial Psychology,

Vol. 26: 59-71

Author details

Maykel Verkuyten can be contacted at the:

Department of General Social Sciences

Utrecht University

Heidelberglaan 2

NL - 3584 CS Utrecht

The Netherlands

E-mail: [email protected]

Sofie van de Calseijde and Wieger de Leur may be contacted c/o Dr Verkuyten.

Documents

Verkuyten Et Al 3rd Generation South Moluccans in NL_The Nature of Ethnic Identity