This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ]
On: 21 April 2013, At: 06:58
Publisher: Routledge Informa 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 Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20 Thirdgeneration South Moluccans in the Netherlands: The nature of ethnic identity Maykel Verkuyten a , Sofie van de Calseijde b & Wieger de Leur b a Department of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht, NL 3584 CS, The Netherlands E-mail: b Department 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 systematic reproduction, 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 contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be 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 in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Ethnie and Migration Studies Vol. 25 No. 1: 63-79 January 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 recommended 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 examines 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; Vermeulen and 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 groups are categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves' (Barth 1969: 10). He attached great importance to the ideas and thoughts 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 predominantly 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. J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 64 M. Verkuyten, 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 everyday thinking is not a wordless process but 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 argumentative nature of thinking. People not only make ethnic distinctions and give definitions, they also account for them. Billig does not use the word 'rhetoric' in a denigratory 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 example, categorisation is inherently controversial because one way 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 culture, equality and freedom, provide 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). However, ideology can be understood in many different ways (e.g. Purvis and Hunt 1993; Thompson 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 community but are linking themselves to its history' (Billig and Sabucedo 1994: 126). J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans 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 Netherlands, 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 whom 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 comparison other. Pettigrew (1978) claims that the range of potential compari- 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 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 groups can be seen as being 'ethnic' from the 'inside' because a common imagined history, origin and culture is used for self-definition (Hutnik 1991; Roosens 1994). In addition, there may be a difference between 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 made whereby continuity is also emphasised. History In order to contextualise our research among Moluccans living in the Nether- lands, we need to provide a short historical description. In 1945, two days after the end of the Japanese occupation of what was then called Dutch-India, a group 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 Dutch government saw no other solution than to bring the Moluccan military and their families to the Netherlands. In 1951 around 12,500 people arrived in the Netherlands. Because their stay was thought 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 army. In the 1970s some young 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 support the RMS. And later still the focus was 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 among the Moluccans and the Dutch alike. The Dutch 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 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 Netherlands. Interviewees were located through 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 were asked to talk about their ethnic affiliations and their views on their position in Dutch society and society at large. The interviews were 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 underemphasis of ethnicity (e.g. Campbell 1981). These and other effects have 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. J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 68 M. Verkuyten, 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 independent South Moluccan stale. For them the RMS and the annual memorial of the declaration of independence of 1950 held on 25 April in The Hague had no strong political significance but predominantly meant a feeling of unity and belonging to one people. 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 grandma and granddad strongly believed in it and my parents probably still believe in it somehow. They were very much in favour of it and would probably have wanted to die for it, but looking at it from a rational viewpoint 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 was in this country. Although they acknowledged the importance of the RMS, this definition implies a different stance towards the ideal of an RMS than the one maintained by previous generations. However, there was also a clear continuation with these generations. The political struggle and hardships 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans 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 continuity but also provides 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 put it, 'I used to feel a bit inferior, because they were real Moluccans, and I was part Moluccan and part Dutch', and another interviewee said, There are times when I can sense that they're thinking, "you're not a real Moluccan, you're only a half-caste"'. Hence, in the interviews the emphasis was 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 between themselves and blackness (e.g. Gordon 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 group in a positive way has an influence on the position 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 number of half-castes. I'm afraid this will mean that we'll be left with 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 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 maintenance was 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 Malay language properly. For them not speaking Malay was related to feelings of exclusion from the Moluccan community. ' 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. J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 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 interviewees differentiated themselves 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 were Dutch although they felt Moluccan. 5 However, it is not only the present but also the past that can be used to argue 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 72 M. Verkuyten, 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 between Moluccans 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 was argued 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 own culture but also affirmed their own way 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 as lacking 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 and therefore are always 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 Dutch. 1 may live in the Netherlands, but the 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 true that we're discriminated against. Although they say that we are Dutch, we don't really notice that that's the case. (26 year old female) 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 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 S foreigners rather than as people with a darker 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 groups in the Netherlands. 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 Moluccans' opportunities in society because the Dutch 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 not 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 s 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 s not what we were. (20 year old female) 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 s 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 wonder. 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 whenever she sees a Moroccan or a Turk complaining on television, says "why don't you go back to your own country?" Things were a lot harder 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 Turks J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 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 groups. The interviewees claimed a distinct 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 what they do not want to do. Compulsion is contrary to individual freedom and formulating something as compulsory is defining it negatively within 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 put it, they were ordered or commanded 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 hard life full of toil and sacrifice and after many years were still confronted with 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 was sometimes specified by referring to Turks 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 paradigmatic examples of foreigners. The Turks and Moroccans were seen as the J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 75 prototypes of foreigners. However, 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 groups was 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 boundaries. However, arguments 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 put it, an ethnic identity: "I am Moluccan, I am a Turk, I am a Moroccan" etc. But I feel - I've thought about 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 humanity and 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 among 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 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 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 argumentative 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 dependent on a range of processes of construction. 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 that have importance 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 but not 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 Netherlands. They situated their future and their claims within this country with which there is a historically old relationship. This constellation of constructions and definitions functions ideologically J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 77 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 dominant group's definitions and 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 productive strategy for articulating differences and making 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 Turks and Moroccans. This shows that culture is a discourse with mixed potential that can be interpreted and applied differently in argument (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 cultural 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 boundaries. 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- J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . 78 M. Verkuyten, 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. However, 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 thanks to Charley Behoekoe Nam Radja and 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 'real' 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 Two-thirds of the interviewees defined themselves as both Moluccan and Dutch. However, 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) 'Introduction', in F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference, London: Allen & Unwin Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton and A. Radley (1988) Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking, London: Sage Billig, M. and J. Sabucedo (1994), 'Rhetorical and ideological dimensions of common sense', in J. Siegfried (Ed.), The Status of Common 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 Alternative Anthropology of Identity, London: Routledge Cornell, S. (1996) The variable ties that bind: content and circumstances in ethnic processes'. Ethnic and Racial 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 and Racial Studies, Vol. 16: 1-25 Frankenberg, R. (1993) The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters, Minneapolis, 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 Social Organization of Meaning, New York: Columbia University Press Hutnik, N. (1991) Ethnic Minority Identity: A Social Psychological Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Jenkins, R. (1994) 'Rethinking ethnicity: identity, categorization and power', Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 17: 197-223 Meloen, J.D. and Veenman, J. (1990) Het is maar de Vraag: Onderzoek naar Responseffecten bij Minderhedensurveys, Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande Nagel, J. (1994) 'Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture', Social Problems, Vol. 41: 152-76 Pettigrew, T.F. (1978) Three issues in ethnicity: boundaries, deprivations and perceptions' in J.M. Yinger and S.J. Cutler (Eds), Major Social Issues: Multidisciplinary Views, New York: Free Press, 25-49 Purvis, T. and A. Hunt (1993) 'Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology... .', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44: 473-99 J o u r n a l
o f
E t h n i c
a n d
M i g r a t i o n
S t u d i e s
1 9 9 9 . 2 5 : 6 3 - 7 9 . Third-generation South Moluccans in the Netherlands 79 Roosens, E. (1994) The primordial nature of origins in migrant ethnicity' in H. Vermeulen and C. Govers (Eds), The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond 'Ethnic Groups and Boundaries', Amsterdam: Spinhuis, 81-104 Steijlen, F. (1996) RMS: Van ldeaal tot Symbool. Moluks Nationalisme in Nederland 1951-1994, Amsterdam: Spinhuis Taylor, D.M., F.M. Moghaddam and J. Bellerose (1989) 'Social comparison in an intergroup 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 People of Mixed Parentage, London: Routledge Ullah, P. (1990) 'Rhetoric and ideology in social identification: the case of second generation Irish youths'. Discourse and Society, Vol. 1: 167-68 Verkuyten, M. (1997a) 'Discourses of ethnic minority identity', British Journal of Social 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 and Racial Studies, Vol. 18: 251-76 Vermeulen, H. and Govers, C. (1994) The 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', British Journal of Social 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: M.Verkuyten@fss.uu.nl Sofie van de Calseijde and Wieger de Leur may be contacted c/o Dr Verkuyten. J o u r n a l
Randy M. Shilts 1952-1994 Author(s) : William W. Darrow Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1994), Pp. 248-249 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 02/09/2014 13:37