Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

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

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
.

S-ar putea să vă placă și