Jan Willem Duyvendak is Distinguished Research Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He received his master’s degrees in both sociology and philosophy at the University of Groningen. His main fields of research currently are belonging, urban sociology, 'feeling at home' and nativism. In 2013-2014, Duyvendak was Distinguished Fellow at the Advanced Research Collaborative at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. In Spring 2016 he was Research Fellow at the Paris Institute for Advanced Studies.

Go to ResearchGate

Betwist het doorgeschoten ideaal van zelfredzaamheid, niet de zorgzame professional

logo-sociale-vraagstukken_tcm30-341386.jpeg-2Goed om te weten of het ideaal van zelfredzaamheid ten uitvoering gebracht wordt, maar waag het niet om het ideaal zelf ter discussie te stellen. Zo lezen wij de reactie van Levi van Dam en Gert-Jan Stams op onze vaststelling dat zelfredzaamheid een armoedig ideaal is.

De reflex om kritische geluiden te smoren over terminologie als ‘eigen regie’, ‘co-creatie’, ‘samenredzaamheid’ en het dogma van een noodzakelijke ‘paradigmashift’ zien we dagelijks op de werkvloer. Beleidsmakers corrigeren professionals, professionals corrigeren elkaar en – nog het meest opvallend – professionals corrigeren zichzelf als zij hun handelingen niet kunnen rechtvaardigen in deze new speak-termen. En nu corrigeren dus ook onderzoekers andere onderzoekers die niet vanzelfsprekend willen meegaan in de ‘paradigmashift’. Wat dat betreft kan de politiek het zich niet beter wensen: beleidshorige wetenschappers identificeren zich volledig met de nieuwe politieke doelen en verliezen hun kritische distantie.

Lees het artikel dat ik schreef met Thomas Kampen op socialevraagstukken.nl

Engaging citizens: local interactions, policy discourse and courses of protest against mobile phone cell site deployment


Bröer, C., M. B. de Graaff, J. W. Duyvendak & R. A. Wester (2016) Engaging citizens: local interactions, policy discourse and courses of protest against mobile phone cell site deployment, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, DOI:10.1080/23254823.2016.1201427

This article puts forward an interactionist discourse approach for studying the course of local political protest. We argue that how local policy-makers engage with the (anticipated) demands of citizens and mediate national policy produces distinct framing and feeling rules about potentially controversial issues. These framing and feeling rules open up or close down opportunities for citizen concerns to develop into collective action and policy change. Our contribution refines cultural approaches to social movement theory, focusing on local interactions in the formation of discourse, and allows us to better understand within-country variation in the course of contentious collective action. We develop our argument through a comparison of sixteen cases of installing mobile phone cell sites in the Netherlands. We show that the interaction between municipalities and citizens establishes a specific framing of the issue, of the role of citizens in decision-making and of the rules concerning what citizens may legitimately feel about mobile phone masts being erected in their neighbourhoods. This gives rise to four typical patterns of engagement between municipalities and citizens.


The Not So Good Old Days: How the U.S. Became a Multicultural Society


5c0879f5-23ff-41f6-9504-7637ca21adeaLecture on June 24h by Nancy Foner 

The United States is often characterized as a classic immigration country or settler society,  and Americans as long accepting ethnic diversity and celebrating the country as a “nation of immigrants.”  The analysis of the relationship between past and present, however, shows that the “good old days” were not as good as Americans often remember in terms of accepting ethnic diversity, and Americans have not always thought of their country as a “nation of immigrants.”   How did historical developments over the course of the twentieth century create what we now think of as America’s multicultural or cultural pluralist society?  Why is it too simple to attribute this change to the U.S. position as a settler society?  And what are the barriers to inclusion that immigrants and their descendants continue to face in the U.S. today?

Nancy Foner is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.


Limits to protest: depoliticization, technological innovation and civic affect

June 29th,  Universiteitstheater 3.01, June 28th 2016, 16:30 – 18:00, drinks after.

How does protest come about? When and how do contentious publics emerge, and when do they fail to do so? In the context of Prof. dr. Jan Willem Duyvendak’s faculty professorship ‘Emotions & Institutions’ during this afternoon we invite you to discuss with us the emergence of protest movements, or rather, why sometimes contentious collective action does not come about. 

Bert de Graaff will elaborate on his PhD thesis, which shows how the rather steadfast worry of citizens around a specific technological innovation, mobile phone cell sites, is prolonged by specific policy practices which try to subdue it. A vicious cycle of feedback between citizens’ concerns and policy creation comes about which ensures that people continue to treat the installation of antennas for mobile phones with extreme caution. In reaction, Sander van Haperen and Davide Beraldo will take-up the perspective offered through their respective PhD researches which, instead, focus on successful mobilizations, in terms of network-building and scaling up, where the adoption of new technological devices, such as social media, proves to be critical. Imrat Verhoeven will briefly reflect on the three speakers’ contributions.

For more information, and to register please send an email to Yoren Lausberg at Y.A.lausberg@uva.nl

Giving History its Place in Migration & Refugee Debates & Research

imageIn the current debates concerning refugees, we observe, in some European countries, at least three ways in which history tends to ‘disappear’:
(1) the past is either absent because it is unknown (it thus looks as if we have never dealt with refugees before…)
(2) actual developments are put in a quasi-historical perspective, by claiming that certain countries have always known certain types of policies, resulting in a rather static and a-historical picture as well;
(3) migrants are urged to leave their histories home.

This seminar will look into ways to do ‘justice’ to history, both in the political debate and in scholarly work.