Locals and Cosmopolitans: Encounters with

Transnationalism in Amsterdam's Begijnhof

Jaco Correa Sánchez1* Simon Jonas Hadlich1*

jejacosa@gmail.com simon@simoncolumbus.com

Eline Schaart1* Vasileios Takas1*

elineschaart@gmail.com vasilis.t@hotmail.com

Itumeleng Monokoane2

i.monokoane@gmail.com

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.