The Normality and Materiality of the Dominant Discourse: Voluntary Work Inside a Dutch Asylum Seeker Center

ABSTRACT

This article explores the narratives of the volunteers working inside Dutch asylum seeker centers (AZCs). The objective was to explore the challenges and coping strategies of these volunteers, who face contradictory processes: being engaged to improve the condition of asylum seekers in the context of growing antimigrant/antirefugee sentiment in The Netherlands, dominant exclusionary discourse, and the difficult material conditions in AZCs. The analysis of these narratives shows that in spite of some conflicting emotions, a specific form of agency (through the combination of idealistic convictions and pragmatic strategies of change) enabled these volunteers to remain optimistic in their work.

KEYWORDS:

• Dominant discourse
• asylum seekers
• agency
• total institution
• volunteers
• narratives

Influential social scientists such as Zygmunt Bauman (2000) have defined our era as the era of liquid modernity. Bauman argues that in this period, the solid base of security has been replaced by the mobility of ideas, people, and resources. That said, the rate of mobility is certainly connected to structures of inequality, providing some with more space to be mobile than others. The emergence of fortress Europe (with emphasis on protecting the borders) has been referred to as a new kind of gated community designed to keep out migrants and refugees (Van Houtum & Pijpers, 2007). An example of a gated community inside a number of European countries is the asylum seeker center, providing a somewhat reversed expectation of security. Such centers do not provide safety for those inside but keep societies safe from the intrusion of these asylum seekers. Diken (2004, p. 1) refers to these centers as “non-places,” “in which they [asylum seekers] lead a life in a permanent state of exception and [in] detention centers into which they are forced without trial.”

In this article we focus on the narratives of volunteers working within the asylum seeker centers (AZCs) in The Netherlands. These volunteers belong to the volunteer organization Vrolijkheid (Happiness), which initiates activities inside more than 20 AZCs in the country. Vrolijkheid's members have different professional and ethnic backgrounds and organize various activities primarily aimed at children and teenagers in the AZCs. According to its website: “The Happiness provides attention and ensures activities for children who are stuck in the no-man's land of asylum-seeking procedures. The resilience of children inspires us. We need to invest in that and dare others to do so as well” (De Vrolijkheid, n.d., para. 4).

There has been much research on conditions of asylum seekers in general and the living conditions of asylum seekers in AZCs in particular (e.g., Dupont, Kaplan, Verbraeck, Braam, & Van de Wijngaart, 2005; Ghorashi, 2005; Geuijen, 2003; Kohlman, 2003; Van Dijk, Bala, Ory, & Kramer, 2001). In addition, much attention has been given to the professionals who work with trauma survivors, along with some for the staff working in more-practical and supportive roles (Guhan & Liebling-Kalifani, 2011, p. 206). In The Netherlands, Geuijen (1998) has provided insights into the challenges faced by AZC staff dealing with asylum seekers on a daily basis. Yet, there is little research on specific challenges and narratives of the members of volunteer organizations. In addition, the particularity of Vrolijkheid is that their role is not advocacy oriented or providing juridical support during the asylum procedure but mainly bringing contentment to residents of the centers, making their work different from that of other organizations involved in AZCs. By analyzing the narratives of these volunteers within the Dutch discursive context we hope to increase knowledge of this domain. The objective of this research was to explore the challenges these volunteers face in their mission of providing joyful and positive activities to the AZCs while positioned within demanding discursive and material structures. By exploring the dilemmas and strategies of these volunteers dealing with contradictory processes, we aim to provide theoretical and practical reflections on the possibilities and limitations of agency in relation to discursive power. Approaching the process of discursive positioning/coping of the members of this particular organization inside and outside the AZCs provides a new angle in asylum seeker studies. It also shows the particular role of volunteer organizations partaking in the debate on asylum seekers and refugees. Yet, this study can have wider implications for re-evaluating the possibilities of agency within seemingly impossible discursive structures. It provides insights into the importance of certain types of coping strategies for people working and volunteering in contested and controversial societal arenas. It also enables alternative ways of imagining the site of change—not as something grandiose or structure oriented but as small actions having great implications for the well-being of individuals. In the following section we elaborate on the theoretical concepts and discussion central to our research.

Power of discourse and agency

Foucault developed the notion of discourse as a structure composed of ideas, dispositions, conducts, systems of beliefs, and practices. For Foucault (1977, 1980) power is not an external agent shaping individual actions and social connections. The reflections on power and its influences do not follow a top-down structure but work rather in a rhizomatic manner (Ghorashi & Wels, 2009). A rhizome has neither direction nor a single source: a rhizome is a “botanical term for a root system that spreads across the ground (as in bamboo) rather than downwards, and grows from several points rather than a single tap root” (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2000, p. 207). This view refers to power as something omnipresent in society and incorporated into the everyday lives and actions of individuals. In this way, Foucauldian or discursive power does not refer to the domination over one group by another but to structures of dominance, normalizing the actions of all individuals who are positioned within a certain discursive space (Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013). This means that disciplinary power incorporates ideas and actions that are taken for granted in daily practices, implying the acquisition and internalization of specific standards, customs, and rules that over time might appear normal and unquestioned by the institutionalized individual.

In addition to the invisible work of power through normalization, Foucauldian power has a visible face that confronts individuals with different forms of observable control and enforcement, as, for example, in prisons or mental hospitals. Yet, for exploring this visible, or what we refer to as material, aspect of discursive power we found the concept of the total institution by Erving Goffman (2007) to be particularly useful. Hacking summarizes the complementary aspect of the work of Foucault and Goffman when he writes that Foucault's work is “directed at entire ‘systems of thought,’” (Hacking 2004, p. 277), while Goffman's work is “concerned with individuals in specific locations entering into or declining social relations with other people” (Hacking 2004, p. 278). Goffman's concept of the total institution helps us to map the everyday material consequences of normalized discourses in practice within institutions. Although Foucauldian power includes materiality as well, Goffman's concept of the total institution gives us the tools to explore it. He defines general patterns of a total institution according to five characteristics: (1) All activities take place within the limits of the institution, where individuals tend to sleep, play, work, and entertain and where there is an overall rationale behind the design of the organization. These activities are physically separated from those who are not part of the institution. (2) The total institution is a separate entity, an independent world where the social engagement of the individual with the outside world is limited and in some cases nonexistent. (3) The place given to the work of those individuals who are institutionalized is the institution itself. In these cases work is not aimed at earning income, as all the basic needs are covered within the institution. The motivation behind working is mostly a recreational motivation, to pass the time. (4) The lack of employment leads to a general feeling of boredom or, as Goffman refers to it, “omnipresence of boredom.” There might not be enough work for the residents or there is simply no motivation to perform any activity. (5) There is a separation between those living in the institution and those working for it. The separation between the inmates and the staff is marked and mobility between groups is nearly nonexistent. The main idea behind total institutions is that the majority of human requirements are covered under different forms of bureaucratic control. All these requirements are provided in an impersonal and bureaucratic manner, where the individuals are kept away from decisions concerning their future. In this way, institutionalized individuals experience a degradation of the self that in many cases is materialized through social or physical abuse.

For this study, it was this particular connection between the physical space as a source of control and the invisible discursive power that intrigued us. In addition, we were interested in examining the existing space for agency within this exclusionary structure in which material/physical and abstract/normalized aspects of discourse converge and interact as part of a shared reality. Space for agency is created when these taken for granted discursive positions are unraveled through reflexivity. In line with Zanoni and Janssens (2007, p. 1376), we define agency as the “capacity [of individuals] to be reflexive about their situation—their ‘discursive consciousness’—and to act upon it to ‘make a difference’” (see also Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013).

Asylum seekers: Images and material conditions

To understand the images of asylum seekers in The Netherlands, we need to situate them within the broader Dutch discourse on migration. It is widely acknowledged at a scientific and a political level that the debate in the public sphere on immigration and integration in The Netherlands had gradually taken on a negative tone by the end of the 1990s. This situation deteriorated after the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001, and led to increasing discussions about multiculturalism, integration, and perception of the other, especially when that other is not seen as part of Western culture. Apart from this, changes in the Dutch welfare system, the killings of Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Theo van Gogh in 2004, and the presence of anti-immigrant politicians, such as Geert Wilders, have contributed to the growth of a discourse with adverse connotations in relation to immigration and integration into Dutch society. Joppke (2007) argues that there is a clear growth of a repressive liberalism, in which The Netherlands has adapted the most brutal alternative to civic integration. Bonjour & Lettinga (2012, p. 271) argue that the electoral successes of anti-immigrant politicians has pressured the Left to revise its views on issues of immigrant integration. Vasta (2007) argues that there has been a shift in The Netherlands from multiculturalism toward assimilation. This discursive shift accompanies the persistent image of migrants and refugees as problems (Ghorashi, 2014), who are either causing difficulties for the society or costing too much. Similar developments are observable in other countries in the West as well (Sulaiman-Hill, Thompson, Afsar, & Hodliffe, 2011; Ghorashi & Ponzoni, 2014). The growth of adverse discourses related to migrants and refugees has had decisive consequences for asylum seekers coming to The Netherlands.

In recent decades, the reception of asylum seekers has gained center stage in the public debate (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2011; Vink, 2007). This growing attention coincided with an increase of state intervention with stricter controls regarding entry, accommodation, and procedures. These changes, among others, had material manifestations in terms of the location and the institutionalization of asylum seekers in the AZC system (Geuijen, 2003; Van der Horst, 2004). These centers are most often located outside of urban areas. In some cases, they were built specifically to accommodate asylum seekers, while in other cases, buildings such as former monasteries, military barracks, or hotels have been adapted for the purpose. In the light of the growing restrictions on the reception of asylum seekers, the government coalition agreement of 2010 used the following phrase regarding asylum and immigration policy: “strict but just” (streng maar rechtvaardig). More than a decade earlier, Geuijen (1998) refers to a similar phrase “sober yet human” (sober doch humaan), which was used for the reception of the asylum seekers in The Netherlands. Balancing the cost conscious with the human side of the reception in the context of the growing anti-immigrant discourse in The Netherlands has become a source of contradictory demands of control, low costs, and a human approach and has consequences for asylum seekers living in AZCs apart from the society (see also Geuijen, 1998).

Applying for asylum in The Netherlands implies that the person will need to report to an Application Center of the Immigration and Naturalization Department (IND). In this first stage, the stories of asylum seekers are of significance and the primary tool for gaining asylum. In practice however, Blommaert (2001) argues that asylum seekers face narrative inequalities, meaning that the asylum procedure requires discursive instruments that are often beyond the abilities of the asylum seekers. Once all the procedures have taken place (including checks of identity, documents, and health), the person is finally accommodated in an AZC (COA, n.d., paras. 1 & 2).

We agree with Geuijen (1998) in identifying the AZC as a total institution. We argue that in spite of some variations, the five characteristics of total institutions as described by Goffman fit the reality of AZCs. Firstly, all asylum seeker activities take place within the confines of the AZC, where they sleep, live, and entertain themselves under the rationale of COA (Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers). Secondly, the AZC is a separate world with very limited interaction between the individual and the neighboring community and the outside world. While the residents are free to come and go, they tend to remain within the center. This is mostly due to the fact that they have limited resources to leave the AZC. In addition, they often remain in the AZCs due to a lack of reasons to go out (Van der Horst, p. 39). Furthermore, leaving and entering the centers is not as easy as it might seem. Asylum seekers have the duty to report regularly, and the centers run security checks. Thirdly, in the case of the AZC, people are allowed to work in a limited manner. Just as Goffman stated, the main reason given for the residents to work is passing time. COA's own website states: “Their self-help is promoted by taking part in the maintenance of the grounds and cleaning the communal areas, etc. They are paid a small sum for this.” The fourth characteristic is connected to the latter—it is boredom. Serious intellectual and emotional repercussions have been widely documented in the cases of asylum seekers. This is aggravated by lengthy bureaucratic procedures. The fifth characteristic, clearly evident in the AZC, is the separation between the staff and the asylum seekers, with mobility between groups being nearly nonexistent. The residents are identifiable not only by their physical appearance and their clothing but by the spaces they are allowed to use within the AZC. This material condition of AZCs is situated within the societal discourse that is becoming increasingly restrictive toward migrants in general and asylum seekers in particular.

Coping strategies in challenging situations

To comprehend the space for agency of the volunteers of Vrolijkheid, it is relevant to draw attention to the possible role conflicts they may experience, while considering the specific coping and engagement strategies of frontline staff working in situations comparable to AZCs. According to Dahrendorf (1973), socialization involves depersonalization. Social roles fall under the group's command and actors perform their roles due to the anxiety of being ostracized. Despite this, individuals do not totally surrender to their social roles and for that reason working in conflicting structures with large numbers of distressed people often contributes to stress and burnout (Robinson, 2014, p. 607). However, too much focus on the consequences of possible role conflicts and the negative impact of this kind of high-demand work limits our perspective on its positive aspects. For example, Guhan and Liebling-Kalifani (2011) report on the compassion satisfaction and vicarious resilience of frontline staff working with asylum seekers and refugees (see also Robinson, 2014). Zanoni and Janssens (2007) elaborate on the ways that employees' engagement with discursive and material structures of their organizations enables them to generate positive outcomes in spite of the limitations they face. In what they refer to as microemancipations, individuals find ways to unsettle material and normalized structures, which potentially could lead to a number of specific changes (2007, p. 1395).

Volunteers working in organizations such as Vrolijkheid could roughly be situated within the category of street-level bureaucrats as defined by Lipsky (2010). Street-level bureaucrats are the human face of laws and policies. They deal directly with their clients, while enjoying an important level of autonomy and discretion to perform their duties. Volunteer organizations are argued to be included in the so-called Third Space of the society. According to Van Til, this space represents concerns regarding “advocacy for social change and justice, service to the poor and despised, articulation of concerns for community and quality of life in the context of social responsibility” (2000, pp. 208–210). The Third Space is not autonomous with respect to society's major institutions, but it is a space in which “individual and collective acts of reflection and action” go beyond the formal constraints of the institutions (Van Til, 2000, p. 209). Handel (2003) argues that individuals in voluntary organizations are intrinsically motivated by altruistic reasons to help their clients and are constantly challenged by contradictory processes resulting from unclear objectives and discouraging circumstances (Lipksy, 2010; Geuijen, 1998). In the specific context of AZCs, Geuijen (2003) shows that the employees face a high level of psychological pressure yet are committed to providing the best possible service to asylum seekers. In her research, Geuijen (2003, p. 331) refers to Walkup's work on staff in humanitarian organizations (1997) and identifies four phased strategies that AZC employees adapt to cope with their demanding work environment. Firstly, the stress of identifying the limitations of their efforts leads to overwork as new staff try to overcome feelings such as guilt, rejection, and frustration by working even harder with the risk of burnout. Secondly, realizing that their extra work is unable to solve the situation of their clients, employees detach themselves from the situation, tending to create distance. At this stage they might try to avoid any form of direct contact with clients. Thirdly, a transference stage occurs as staff point to external factors or organizations as responsible for their failure to do their job properly. Finally, reality distortion: Some situations are so difficult that staff will maintain an illusion of success that would allow a sense of self-worth from the work they are doing. Since Vrolijkheid volunteers are not employees of the AZC—so not formally “part of the system”—their challenges are somewhat different from those of the AZC employees in Geuijen's study. In spite of this, the coping strategies presented are a useful frame through which to analyze the narratives of our respondents as well.

Guides in the research and methodology

The main question that guided this research was, How do the volunteers of Vrolijkheid engage with the contradictory processes they are facing in their work within the Dutch AZCs? To answer this question we made use of qualitative methods, which provided access to the narratives of the respondents in relation to their roles in various settings and situations. The main aim of qualitative research is to provide in-depth understanding of the social sphere by observing and analyzing individuals' material and social situations through their experiences, views, and stories (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). In addition to in-depth interviews, participant observations and document gathering (website, social media, leaflets, etc.) were used as complementary methods to gain a comprehensive view of Vrolijkheid in the context of AZCs. This combination allowed the researchers to produce a “narrative description” by making use of the data collected mainly in the form of quotations and descriptions and through fragments of documents and observations (Hammersley, 1990). Blommaert's (2005, p. 229) argument for an ethnography, which situates the theoretical questions of power within practice through narratives, was appealing to us. Close observations of daily interactions and listening to the narratives gave us the opportunity to see the various manifestations of discursive power in practice.

After a few e-mails and phone conversations with Vrolijkheid we were provided the possibility to conduct research in one of the AZCs. This location was chosen because of its accessibility (in terms of allowing the research to take place) and the number of volunteers it had (potential respondents). The data consists of 13 interviews in English, which were recorded, and approximately 60 hours of observations divided among two festivals and other activities at Vrolijkheid. We visited the organization in situ and interacted with volunteers, asylum seekers, and visitors. The amount of time volunteers spent for the activities of Vrolijkheid varied according to particular projects—for example, organization of festivals or exhibitions. All the members interviewed for this research were women. This was not surprising since most of the volunteers of Vrolijkheid are women. This gender difference in voluntary organizations is also shown in other studies. For example, Taniguchi (2006, pp. 91–92) demonstrates that while there is not much difference between full-time-employed men and women, women employed part-time or unemployed engage considerably more in volunteering than men. Women responsible for the care of elderly family members, however, tend to be discouraged from volunteering. In addition, Donoghue (2001) argues that women volunteers are inclined to feel gratified through the feeling of “doing good,” while their male counterparts feel more rewarded by the results of their voluntary activities. None of the respondents we spoke with had a refugee background, in spite of the fact that some asylum seekers and refugees are also members of Vrolijkheid. We chose to focus only on members who did not have a refugee background because we were particularly interested in their in-between position of not having the experience of asylum yet being so intensely involved with the condition of asylum seekers.

In-depth interviews helped us to capture the nuances and variations within individual narratives and, in this case, the way members of Vrolijkheid describe the discursive reality of which they are a part. The open nature of the interviews allowed us to follow the dynamic of the narrative and discover the layeredness presented in the narratives of the respondents. We used a general interview guide to slightly structure the interviews and make sure that the necessary questions were asked. In order to make the concepts of discourse and agency/engagement accessible for interviewees, we made them operational by translating the main theoretical concepts into subconcepts and converting them into interview topics that were presented to the respondents as questions. For example, from the theoretical concept of discourse, the subconcept was the dominant discourse on immigration in The Netherlands, the trigger question that we formulated was, “What do you think is the general perception of asylum seekers and refugees in The Netherlands?” The concepts of agency and engagement in relation to the discourse were operationalized through the activities of the volunteers inside and outside the organization. When operationalizing the activities at Vrolijkheid, we wanted to know about the position of the respondent within the present discursive space while working and interacting with asylum seekers and fellow members in Vrolijkheid.

In addition to formal interviews, we had other forms of interaction and conversations, such as casual chats and participation in various activities, which contributed to a more comprehensive picture of the role of Vrolijkheid in AZCs. Being on site enabled us to see and observe different aspects of the respondents in the research, their attitudes, their work routines, and their interactions with different individuals. Once all the data were collected, we transcribed the interviews and read them several times, marking the relevant parts in relation to the questions that triggered our research and connected them to the impressions and thoughts that were documented in the field. Then we identified the main themes and patterns present in the narratives and formulated a list of constants through which we organized our empirical findings.

Empirical findings

In this section, we start by presenting the two different faces (normalized and material) of the discourse concerning asylum seekers as presented through the narratives of the volunteers interviewed. After that we elaborate on how they relate and engage with these two discursive aspects through their daily interactions both inside and outside the centers.

Normalizing discourse and consequences

A distinctive nonverbal element noticed during the interviews was that while the respondents were talking, the relaxed and cozy atmosphere turned sober as the descriptions became more detailed. At this stage in the conversations, the smiles and the laughs from the women's faces dropped and gave way to distress, concern, and various levels of anguish.

Most of the comments are negative about the asylum seekers, […] When I tell people that I work at AZC, they say “what are you doing there? Why are you working there?” Because, they say, “We have problems here in NL with our own population, and because of them [asylum seekers] everything is becoming so expensive, because they take our money, they take our food, they take our work.” That is what people say. (Respondent 7)

This quote illustrates the types of questions and remarks respondents generally get when interacting with members of Dutch society who are not in contact with asylum seekers and who seemingly do not understand this kind of work. The next excerpt is an example of a reaction from a close circle of friends during the respondent's wedding celebrations. In this case asylum seekers were taking part in her wedding reception, something that suggests that the host, the respondent, cares for and trusts them.

On that day [respondent's wedding party] I heard from few people, saying, “What are these people doing here?” [Asylum seekers who helped with the party organization] “Be careful. I have money in my wallet.” (Respondent 3)

While the first quote illustrates the image of asylum seekers as the source of economic problems for the native population, the second exposes the image of asylum seekers as assumed thieves. The second respondent elaborated on how betrayed she felt when she saw that her friends were not as open-minded and tolerant as she had thought. It was painful for her to realize that there are many people who think like that in her community.

Another aspect repeatedly mentioned by the respondents was the lack of interest in asylum seekers. This was made visible as a form of passive discrimination, in which the opinions were not verbalized or, if they were, were verbalized in a neutral way.

I see it […] look, also my friends are not really interested, a few, not all, I have who are really interested in what I am doing and other people, they do not want to know. Or they don't have interest, in what I am doing. (Respondent 3)

As these narratives show, the power of the present discourse on asylum seekers is not only focused on particular images, but also on the ways these images are normalized in daily practices through a passive form of acceptance of these images or dismissal of the topic. For example, some respondents referred to the existence of “walls of silence” in their interactions. Once asylum seekers are mentioned, they told us, the people they are interacting with ignore the topic altogether.

The role of the media

When asked about the possible reason for certain images, lack of interest, and silence, the respondents referred to the Dutch media.

Because when there is something on TV about people from the AZC it is almost always negative. And when you always hear negative things about something, you will believe that it is really negative. (Respondent 4)

After elaborating on the general media coverage, other respondents went into more detail explicitly mentioning statements from the anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders.

And all this Wilders talking about they [asylum seekers] are making Holland sick. But when we continue to listen […] and when we see it all the time, you are going to believe it. (Respondent 3)

These narratives show the power of the repetition of negative images of asylum seekers in the media, illuminating the ways in which certain images are reproduced and normalized in daily interactions. Normalization happens when these images are both believed and taken for granted simultaneously. In this section we explored the invisible and normalized side of the discourse on asylum seekers and the ways that it influences daily practice. In the following section we turn to what we referred to earlier as the material side of the discourse, which we argued is best approached through the concept of the total institution.

Materiality of discourse: Space and bureaucracy

This material side of the discourse is dominated by the consequences of the institutionalized life that the asylum seekers have in AZCs. Through their accounts, the volunteers reflected on the five characteristics of the total institution. While some respondents elaborated more on the location of the AZCs and how marginalized the centers were in relation to the rest of the cities, others focused on specific living conditions and facilities offered. All of the interviewees commented on the bureaucratic side of the asylum procedure, the high levels of uncertainty, and the lengthiness of the process in itself.

I think the government is stupid [laughs] about, you know, to send them always away or to make it so much difficult. And they do that to the people who are coming, they can stay, but you are not welcome, you know. You can stay but, you, I think government makes always the, the, the feeling that you are not really welcome here. (Respondent 3)

In the following quote the interviewee sees the location of the AZC as a direct form of marginalization of the asylum seekers, where the center remains isolated from the rest of Dutch life. She refers to the physical distance and separation as an impediment for Dutch natives to getting to know more about the asylum seekers and their situations.

Because people do not know them, so they have their own town, actually, they live in the asylum center. So, normal people here in the city do not have contact with these people, so they do not know about their lives; they do not know what they are going through. […] People [Dutch people] do not know that they are normal people. […] Too much space between the centers and the normal society, they do not get in contact so much. (Respondent 10)

After elaborating on the location, some interviewees gave rich descriptions of the living conditions in the AZC: describing their sleeping, eating, and day-to-day conditions through the eyes of outsiders (because they have not been refugees themselves). The detailed descriptions suggest that the situations made a strong impact on the respondents. In addition to describing the rooms and the limited privacy in an AZC, respondents noted that asylum seekers were forced to share living space with people from other cultures and backgrounds who, in some cases, might have been former enemies.

Because you know… [silence] this is…[…] a nice AZC but if you see most of them…they look like s**t. I work in […] and if you see that, it is terrible, real terrible […] it is old, the rooms are s**t, is really terrible. It was a former bungalow resort and they have like 4 bedrooms and sometimes there are 12 people living in one house. (Respondent 7)

The bureaucratic reality that surrounds asylum seekers was another recurring theme. Respondents remarked that the already bad situation was worsening dramatically. Examples of waiting times and different numbers of appeals were offered as examples. AZC was often described as a kind of jail. The residents are free to leave, but have no reason to do so; they cannot do much and are given no idea about the duration of their stay. The uncertainty generated, by the living conditions and the possible separation of family members, is aggravated by indefinite waiting times and a general lack of information. Nearly all of the interviewees mentioned suicide attempts by asylum seekers and depression linked to boredom and unpredictability.

Volunteers on the crossroads

The respondents saw themselves caught between asylum seekers in the AZC and the rest of Dutch society. All interviewees struggled with the tension between the dominant images of asylum seekers combined with the materiality of their living conditions and feelings of sympathy for the asylum seekers. The observation of the impossibilities faced by asylum seekers living in the middle of a society that pushes them away created challenges for these volunteers.

The following respondent, a well-known local artist, elaborates on the conflicting feedback she gets from members of her community when talking about her work with Vrolijkheid and her role as a link between both worlds.

People don't realize, who they [asylum seekers] are or what kind of situation they are in, they just don't really want to know […] If I am telling that I am doing this project [a project with Vrolijkheid], and I tell where it is, they [the people] always look like “oh” [surprised] it is strange that they cannot combine those two (she and AZC). […] or people really talk to me like “why were you going there, why do you work there” and I just try to [silence], yea, I try to explain that they are normal people and tell them about the situation of their living. And then you can see them thinking “oh, well I didn't know that.” And I am glad I can lift a little part of the curtain. […] I think it is necessary because we can't always put them [asylum seekers] in the corner of the society. (Respondent 8)

When asked about her feelings about the asylum seekers' situation, the following respondent expresses her in-between position caught between sympathy and views on closing the borders of Europe.

They have to wait long and we should do something about it, you can't make people wait that long. But for me it is a really difficult situation that… that I always find it difficult to make, to take, to take position in that discussion.[…] I understand that, at the other side, it is up to us to put just a wall around Europe and say you are not allowed to be here. You are not allowed to have the same kind of money or happiness or luck basically. For me that is really difficult, I know it is like that and I accept it is like that, if I think about every day, you know, I am always in between opinions. (Respondent 5)

Another volunteer who perceives herself in a similar in-between situation talks about her interaction with her university classmates.

In class we do have discussions about refugees. I tell them [her classmates] that I have seen how people live here [AZC] and that I have seen that a lot of people live in a lot of insecurity and that is very bad for children. […] That they cannot judge the situation or the people, if they don't know what the people have been through. Most of the time they [her classmates] agree with me in the end. (Respondent 6)

The inside-outside position of these volunteers, being active participants of both realities leads to various personal and social dilemmas while doing their work. They explicitly acknowledge that they feel in between two worlds and have opted for investing energy in causes that could be improved and lay within the realm of possibility. What struck us most was that in spite of their consternation about the conditions in AZCs, the respondents remained quite positive about the work they were doing and their achievements. It seemed that a pragmatic approach and a belief in the positive impact of their work has been crucial for dealing with the dilemmas created by their inside-outside position.

Consequences of engagement: Passion at work

All the respondents felt comfortable when referring to their activities interacting with asylum seeker children and teenagers. Elaborating on the details of their duties and examples of their work brought smiles to their faces. Even though the level of frustration concerning the impossible conditions at the AZCs was clearly present, all narratives concentrated on what was doable through the work offered by Vrolijkheid. All the women defined their role as giving attention and care to people and increasing their possibilities for joy and happiness. These fragments represent a key coping strategy showing a shift from structurally oriented change (e.g., laws, regulations, and institutions) to change focused on emotions and well-being. This leads to a repositioning of the arena for transformation from the outside (law/institution) to the inside (feelings).

I hope I make a difference for the children. I can't do anything about their situation basically, and I can't change the past. I can't control what is going to happen to them. I think it is my job to make sure … to try …to give them the attention that they need. We are singing songs and we make them feel good …. Music can, I think, can help you with everything that is happening inside. In a way it helps you deal with it, because it is another way of expressing yourself… [We] try to give them the attention that they need, and I [can give] and that can be in a good way, so like in a positive way, yes we are singing songs, and we make them feel good. (Respondent 5)

In addition to their impact inside the AZCs, the respondents saw Vrolijkheid as a gateway for the residents to the “outside world.” When Respondent 7 was asked if she feels she is making a difference in the reality of asylum seekers' lives, she responded:

I hope so, I hope so, just we are starting a project, matchwerk, we are going to do with flyers and also with volunteers, vacaturebank, that we are looking for people, who want to be, one to one connection with a person from the AZC, […] So the people from here go outside the AZC, and see what the world is like but also that the person from outside sees what life is like in the AZC.

In spite of the limitations and frustrations, optimism dominates, informing the conviction that several initiatives could challenge and ameliorate the present situation. The residents will still live in the AZCs and still be part of the institutional and bureaucratic system, but in the meantime they can have a chance to relate to and engage with Dutch society. Constant references to the outside and inside remind us of the physical separation of the asylum seekers from the wider community.

The women we spoke with felt that instead of confronting media or people holding negative images of asylum seekers, they preferred to concentrate on what could be done in a positive way to change these images.

I feel angry, not aggressive, but I just don't understand it, that you can think like that, and if you think like that, that you dare to say it. I think it is horrible, [Wilders] makes me sick. […] I think I would make people more aware, I think it would help a little bit, just to make, just to have more respect for what the people are doing here and what they have been through, just a little bit of awareness. (Respondent 6)

Every movement is one, and if that movement helps one or maybe two people, or whatever, that is profit. […] Sometimes when I am in the city or around and I see people (asylum seekers), so we meet and we greet and we can make a little conversation or we can say hello […] And I think that helps too, to be part of a community […] so I think they are little drops that helps them. (Respondent 8)

The narratives of the respondents show that there is a balance between a realistic view of the difficult conditions of asylum seekers inside the AZCs and their own contribution to the situation. The respondents defined their role by focusing on individual attention and care for the asylum seekers and by trying to provide as many possibilities for enjoyment as possible. They do not want to be silent bystanders in this situation, hence they try to contribute as much as possible without having high expectations. Their efforts were visible through their everyday activities, with small but continuous steps toward improvements in the realities of the AZC children and teenagers. In relation to society, all members described their position as agents bringing information when possible to their family, friends, school, or in other work interactions

Discussion and conclusion

In this article we have shown the challenges and possibilities of Vrolijkheid volunteers in light of the dominant discourse in The Netherlands on asylum seekers and their material conditions within Dutch AZCs. When the structures of dominance work in a normalized way, the sources of (even most visible) exclusion are taken for granted and met with silence and indifference. The narratives showed that asylum seekers are kept at a distance: at times feared or approached with strong disapproval and at others times simply ignored and met with indifference. This process is justified by the dual impact of the normalized and materialized faces of the discourse that was elaborated on in this article: while the normalizing aspect means that certain images are taken for granted, the material side institutionalizes these images through bureaucracies and regulations. The coexistence of the normalizing and material side of the discourse visible in the totality of an AZC as an institution creates an image of near impossibility for favorable change in the conditions of asylum seekers.

At the same time, the narratives of our respondents show that the combination of various strategies (pragmatism, emphasis on the well-being of asylum seekers instead of structures, focusing on small changes and not having high expectations, and remaining optimistic) together with a strong conviction in the value of their work provides possibilities within seemingly impregnable structures. These strategies are somewhat different from the strategies of AZC employees as mentioned by Geuijen (2003). Although these volunteers also work hard to reach their goals and they blame the system for many problems, we did not come across narratives in which the asylum seekers were blamed or in which volunteers distanced themselves from them. On the contrary, the narratives showed that a strong sense of engagement and optimism combined with realistic ideas of change (contrary to an illusion of success) were the strategies they chose to deal with the conflicting situations they were facing because of their outside-inside position.

The respondents improvised and chose a step-by-step approach to focus on the asylum seeker children and teenagers' well-being and happiness and used available (albeit limited) resources to do so. In line with the findings of Geuijen (2003) and Guhan and Liebling-Kalifani (2011), our respondents discussed some psychological pressure and conflicts in their efforts to enlarge the possibilities of asylum seekers facing discursive and material limitations. Yet, the nature of their work as volunteers bringing “happiness” to the AZCs and their low key, can-do attitude enabled them to stay positive and engaged with the asylum seekers. This is in line with Donoghue's (2001) argument that women volunteers tend to be more gratified solely by doing good rather than by seeing specific results. These narratives also provided rich material to present possibilities for agency. They showed that the respondents' consciousness of their outsider-insider position gave them an opportunity to break the negativity and isolation surrounding the AZCs. Thus, the insider-outsider position of these volunteers became a source of both feeling pressure and agency. This could be compared to an existing body of literature on the in-between position of migrants. Edward Said (1994) argued that while the condition of in-betweenness for migrants could lead to a feeling of disconnectedness, it also has great potential to lead to originality and creativity because migrants constantly negotiate their past and present discourses (Said, 2004). Levitt, (2009, p. 126) argues that the duality of the insider-outsider position has the potential to make migrants masters “of several cultural repertoires that they can selectively deploy in response to the opportunities and challenges they face” (Levitt, 2009, p. 1226). The same has been shown to be true about the volunteers of this study. In spite of the limitations of this in-between positioning, this condition enabled the respondents to be creative in dealing with the contradicting structures they faced.

The aim of this article was not to investigate the impact of these activities on the asylum seekers themselves but to show that the combination of idealistic convictions and specific small, yet focused, strategies of change enabled these volunteers to stay positive and creative in difficult and conflict-filled surroundings. They created space for agency through their activities to improve the images of the asylum seekers and for breaking the silence of indifference by voicing their positive engagement outside the AZCs. Sharing and repeating the stories and the situations of asylum seekers and the consequences of negative discourses in their daily lives contributes to unsettling the politics of forgetting. In this way agency works by challenging normalized discursive positions. The kind of agency that is noticeable here is shaped through small movements. Zanoni and Janssens (2007, p. 1377) refer to this kind of agency as microemancipation, which is less grandiose, but rather “partial, temporal movements breaking away from diverse forms of oppression, rather than successive moves towards a predetermined state of liberation” (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, p. 447).