Explore the vast range of titles available.

Responsibility, participation and choice are key policy framings of active citizenship, summoning the citizen to take on new roles in welfare state reform. This volume traces the emergence of new discourses and the ways in which they take up and rework struggles of social movements for greater independence, power and control. It explores the changing cultural and political inflections of active citizenship in Germany, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Italy and the UK, with ethnographic research complementing policy analysis. The editors then look across the volume to assess some of the tensions and contradictions arising in the turn to active citizenship. Two final chapters address the reworking of citizen/professional relationships and the remaking of public, private and personal responsibilities, with a particular focus on the contribution of feminist research and theory.

Sexuality features prominently in European debates on multiculturalism and in Orientalist discourses on Islam. This article argues that representations of gay emancipation are mobilized to shape narratives in which Muslims are framed as non-modern subjects, a development that can best be understood in relation to the 'culturalization of citizenship' and the rise of Islamophobia in Europe. We focus on the Netherlands where the entanglement of gay rights discourses with anti-Muslim politics and representations is especially salient The thorough-going secularization of Dutch society, transformations in the realms of sex and morality since the 'long 1960s' and the 'normalization' of gay identities since the 1980s have made sexuality a malleable discourse in the framing of 'modernity' against 'tradition'. This development is highly problematic, but also offers possibilities for new alliances and solidarities in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) politics and sexual and cultural citizenship.

In urban neighbourhoods, there is an enduring problem with inequality in participation. Middle-aged, higher educated, white men are often overrepresented. Research indicates that front-line workers can play an important role to reach and activate underrepresented groups, but there is little evidence on how they manage (or fail) to do so. In this article, we focus on front-line workers’ strategies to combat inequality in citizens’ initiatives in the deprived neighbourhoods of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. To analyse these strategies, we construct the ACLR-framework. We find that front-line workers manage to activate a more diverse group of citizens by paying special attention to those who are not already active, by supporting citizens in developing and exercising civic skills, by connecting them with others, and by making sure that citizens experience the system as responsive. However, this professional support is often not recognised because of what we call the civic support paradox: the better that front-line workers do their work, the more invisible it is, and the more difficult it is to pinpoint the factors that make it effective. 在城市居住区中，参与不平等是一个持久存在的问题。中年、受过高等教育的白人男性往往被过度代表。研究表明，在接触和激励代表度不足的群体方面，一线工人可以发挥重要作用，但他们如何得以（或未能）这么做成的证据很少。在本文中，我们重点关注荷兰阿姆斯特丹贫困社区中一线工人在公民倡议行动中采取何种策略与不平等现象作斗争。为了分析这些策略，我们构建了 ACLR 框架。我们发现，一线工人通过以下方式成功激励了一个更多样化的公民群体：特别关注那些尚未活跃的人，支持公民发展和运用公民技能，将他们与他人联系起来，以及确保公民获得体制响应的体验。然而，由于我们所说的公民支持悖论，这种专业支持往往得不到承认：一线工人做得越好，它就越不可见，而且越难以查明使之有效的因素。

Recent work has pointed to the importance for their social inclusion of convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities, but little is known about the spatial and social conditions of the places that encourage these encounters. This paper is concerned with public places that are conducive for convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities. Drawing on extensive participative observations of four community projects and 78 interviews with people visiting or working at these projects we investigated which elements in these places encourage ‘strangers’ to move from merely co-presence to conviviality. Three conditions seem to be conducive, namely: (1) a shared purpose, (2) built-in boundaries, (3) freedom to (dis)engage. These conditions were beneficial for convivial encounters, but do not lead to friendship or longterm support. People engage in such contact because they can be sure that these contacts do not raise expectations of long-term support or friendship. 最近的研宄表明，残疾人和非残疾人之间的愉快互动对残疾人融入社会至关重要，但人 们对促进这种互动的场所应有的空间和社交条件知之甚少。本文探讨怎样的公共场所有 利于残疾人和非残疾人之间的友好交往。基于对四个社区项目的广泛参与性观察和对这 些项目来访者和工作人员的78次访谈，我们研宄了这些地方的哪些因素能促进“陌生人”之 间从仅仅共处走向愉快互动。三个条件似乎是有利的，即：（I)共同的目标，（2)内在的界 限，（3)参与/不参与的自由。这些条件有利于愉快的相遇，但不会促成友谊或长期支持。 人们进行这样的接触是因为他们可以确信这些接触不会造成对长期支持或友谊的期待。

It is not uncommon that women residing in Dutch shelters following domestic violence consider returning to their partners during the course of their stay. Social workers cannot prohibit return due to the importance of the client’s autonomy, as stated in the Code of Ethics. Simultaneously, social workers aim to ensure women’s safety and encourage a positive future, which can lead to tensions in their way of support-giving. Based on thirty-five interviews with social workers, this study explores how they navigate these tensions and the support they give in such cases. Building on Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, we distinguish a hands-off and an interventionist approach to autonomy. While the hands-off approach leads to non-intervention and respecting the woman’s decision, the interventionist approach focuses on providing tools and encouraging safer alternatives. The findings show that the hands-off approach is the common type of support, leading to feelings of powerlessness for social workers and often prompting endeavors to intervene more actively. Simultaneously, we argue that, whilst the Code of Ethics demonstrates an ambivalence towards these different forms of autonomy, it is often interpreted by social workers as promoting only a hands-off approach. Consequently, we argue that social workers would benefit from a greater recognition of an interventionist approach to autonomy and more liberty in support-giving.

While emerging right‐wing populist voices are calling to prevent the arrival of refugees and their integration, volunteers perform solidarity by performing activities to support refugee integration. Most studies on these forms of solidarity in diversity focus on the quality and effectiveness of the activities. The emotional labor involved has received limited attention. To consider this emotional labor in more detail, we use Arlie Hochschild’s concept of feeling and framing rules and relate these rules to prevailing citizenship regimes, distinguishing between the self‐reliance regime and the community regime. Based on in‐depth ethnographic research of volunteer solidarity work in a deprived urban neighborhood and a middle‐class commuter town in the Netherlands, we show that volunteers are strongly aligned with the community regime, which involves navigating a multitude of feeling rules they struggle with. Refugees are more aligned with the self‐reliance regime, which also gives way to emotional struggles. We argue that to promote solidarity in diversity, scholars and policymakers should pay more attention to these different forms of emotional labor and the painful and joyful emotions involved.

Jacobson (Social Science & Medicine 64:292–302, 2007) finds two distinct meanings of “dignity” in the literature on dignity and health: (1) intrinsic human dignity and (2) social dignity constituted through interactions with caregivers. Especially the latter has been central in empirical health research and warrants further exploration. This article focuses on the social dignity of people marginalized by mental illness, substance abuse and comparable conditions in extramural settings. 35 studies published between 2007 and 2017 have addressed this issue, most of them identifying norms for social dignity: civilized interactions, non-stigmatizing treatment, treatment as unique individuals, being taken seriously, maintaining a positive identity, experiencing independence, relating to others, and participating in daily life. We argue that these norms belong to ideal theory, whereas we agree with Robeyns (Social Theory and Practice 34:341–362, 2008) and others that improving practice is better served by non-ideal theory. Towards this end, we derive from the literature four building blocks for a non-ideal theory of dignity: (1) avoid violations of dignity rather than seeking to promote it; (2) dignity is not a goal to be reached; it requires ongoing effort; (3) promoting dignity is a balancing act; contradictory norms can make it impossible to realize; and (4) dignity can be undermined by organizational and discursive constraints.

This paper examines the prevalence of the ideal of “independence” in intellectual disability care in the Netherlands. It responds to a number of scholars who have interrogated this ideal through the lens of Michel Foucault’s vocabulary of governmentality. Such analyses hold that the goal of “becoming independent” subjects people with intellectual disabilities to various constraints and limitations that ensure their continued oppression. As a result, these authors contend, the commitment to the ideal of “independence” – the “ethic of autonomy” – actually threatens to become an obstacle to flourishing in the group home. This paper offers an alternative analysis. It does so by drawing on a case study taken from an ethnographic study on group home life in the Netherlands. Briefly put, the disagreement stems from differing conceptualizations of moral life. Put in the vocabulary of moral anthropologist Cheryl Mattingly, the authors propose to approach the group home more from a “first-person” perspective rather than chiefly from a “third-person” perspective. They then draw on Mattingly to cast the group home as a “moral laboratory” in which the ethic of autonomy is not just reproduced but also enacted, and in which the terms of (in)dependence constantly get renegotiated in practice. What emerges is not only a new perspective on the workings of the “ethic of autonomy” in the group home, but also an argument about the possible limitations of the vocabulary of governmentality for analysing care practices.

In The Netherlands, women who experience domestic violence can rely on public policies that aim to support them, such as shelters. Drawing on the lived experiences, through 10 interviews and observations, of women with different cultural backgrounds and nationalities staying in a shelter, and on 37 interviews with social workers working with these women, we observed that this support falls short for them. We argue that immigration rules, together with policies on domestic violence and housing, (unintentionally) often work in tandem with violent partners to prevent women with migration backgrounds from leaving violent relationships. The paper draws on a perspective of institutional considerations of solidarity to unpack the relations between domestic violence, cultural constraints, and public policies but looks also at the positive experiences of women of migrant backgrounds with these Dutch policies. This research indicates that there is a lack of institutional solidarity towards women, especially those arriving as marriage migrants, who have experienced domestic violence. In exploring the intersections of domestic violence and often exclusionary state policies, the paper reflects on how The Netherlands can provide more support to those women and how intersectional justice and solidarity might be expressed.

Participation, responsibility and choice are key policy framings of active citizenship, summoning the citizen to take on new roles in welfare state reform. Participation, Responsibility and Choice: Summoning the Active Citizen in Western European Welfare States traces the emergence of new discourses and the ways in which they take up and rework struggles of social movements for greater independence, power and control. It explores the changing cultural and political inflections of active citizenship in Germany, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Italy and the UK, with ethnographic research complementing policy analysis. The editors then look across the volume to assess some of the tensions and contradictions arising in the turn to active citizenship. Two final chapters address the reworking of citizen/professional relationships and the remaking of public, private and personal responsibilities, with a particular focus on the contribution of feminist research and theory.