Norbert Elias’s Lens on Amsterdam’s Unrest

Because of the debates about immigration and “integration” after the unrest in Amsterdam, I’m revisiting The Established and the Outsiders by Norbert Elias and John L. Scotson (1994, [1965]). The book says a lot about how groups of people deal with each other, especially when there’s an established an at outsider group involved. Elias's case study of a small English suburb shows the universal nature of established-outsider relationships and the power imbalances within them. In the recent unrest in Amsterdam, these issues of identity, power, and marginalization have come to the forefront.?

Othering

In Winston Parva, a small English suburb, Elias observed how the established group’s sense of superiority was reinforced by their cohesion, shared norms, and control over resources. Similarly, in Amsterdam, dominant political narratives highlight the “othering” of certain communities, with stigmatization playing a significant role. For example, discussions about “failed integration” of Muslim communities align with Elias’s observations of how marginalized groups are often labeled as inferior or threatening. Language, such as references to the Dutch “Judeo-Christian roots” and to “Islamic Jew haters” on the other hand, or the comparison of the Amsterdam unrest to the 1930s and 40s, serves as a powerful tool to reinforce these divisions, much like the rhetoric used by the established group in Elias’s study:

“They simply have different ideas about order and decency.”?

“...they can't control their children.”

?“They have bad morals.”?

“They're just refugees, all [drunkards].”?

“They're as different from us as night and day.”?

“The truth is, they're a different class.”?

Elias emphasis on stigmatization and power dynamics shows how dominant groups maintain their superiority through exclusionary practices. The proposed legislative measures in Amsterdam to denaturalize individuals involved in antisemitic violence reflect an effort to reinforce societal boundaries, with far-reaching implications for marginalized communities. Elias noted that such measures often stem from the dominant group’s fear of losing control rather than addressing the root causes of unrest or violence.?

Naming

Moreover, Elias’s writing about group cohesion and self-regulation can be seen in the political and societal response to the violence. The pressure to conform to dominant narratives, such as “naming” specific groups as perpetrators (“benoemen” in Dutch), is comparable to the self-regulation mechanisms described in Winston Parva. Politicians’ debates about naming “Moroccan Youth” as the culprits and the fierce reactions from various parties reveal the underlying tensions about collective identity and exclusion.?

A dynamic

The Amsterdam case also highlights Elias’s ideas about dynamic power relations. As political leaders like Geert Wilders and Dilan Yesilg?z advocate for denaturalization and other punitive measures, nuanced voices struggle to gain traction. Interestingly, moments of unexpected nuance, reflect Elias’s observation that power dynamics are not static. Shifting power balances between groups can lead to changes in rhetoric and behavior, even within dominant narratives.?

The broader pattern

Finally, Elias’s insights into the economic and psychological interaction between dominant and marginalized groups resonate in ongoing integration debates. When dominant groups seek to reinforce their identity and superiority, marginalized groups are often placed in positions of both dependency and exclusion. In Amsterdam, historical grievances, socio-economic inequalities, and identity politics collide.?Elias’s work reminds us that such conflicts are not isolated incidents but part of broader patterns of human behavior. As we address issues of inclusion, equity, and social cohesion, his analysis urges us to critically examine the power structures and narratives that perpetuate division:?

"As soon as evaluations such as 'good' and 'bad' enter into sociological analysis, the appearance of sharp moral dichotomies arises, where observation of facts primarily reveals simple differences in social structure."

The question remains: how can we promote integration and mutual respect without reinforcing the very divisions we aim to dismantle?

?

Sources:

-?????? Aharouay, L., Koning, P. de (2024), “Wilders krijgt wat hij wil: in debat over antisemitisme is het ‘benoemen’ van het integratievraagstuk terug”, in: NRC, 13 november 2024.

-?????? Elias, N., Scotson, J.L. (1994, [1965]), The?Established and the?Outsiders, SAGE publications.

?