A collection of essays that I wrote

Draft: My Break-Up Letter to Rotterdam


Draft: My Break-Up Letter to the City of Rotterdam.

Introduction

When I was 19 years old, I left the city of Utrecht for the bigger Rotterdam. A love for Utrecht was integrated into my upbringing. So once I left, I did not expect to have a new love affair.

I moved to Rotterdam during quite a tumultuous time, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Everything was closed and everyone was forced to conduct life within the walls of our own homes. The only thing left to do was take strolls around the city. And so, I did. Long wanders alongside the Maas, over the bridges an­­­d into different neighbourhoods sparked my first attraction to Rotterdam. But the love story really started once the pandemic slowed down and everything started to re-open. I quickly fell in love with the radiant, mysterious, and dirty side of Rotterdam. The Rotterdam of the night. But in the past months one newspaper headline has been followed by the other: ‘’We are standing in front of MONO, the club will close its door after 7 years’’ (Bouwer, 2023, translated by author). Weelde stops. After the summer it's done: ‘All good things come to an end’ (de HavenLoods, 2023, translated by author). Poing Club announces closure: ‘We will never abandon the community’ (Open Rotterdam, 2023, translated by author). Club Vibes stops after 25 years: ‘It is not what it used to be’ (Oostrom, 2023, translated by author). The Rotterdam that I fell in love with is changing, and not in the direction that I want it to. Is what I thought to be a newfound love, nothing more than a short-term fling?

Before I send my break-up letter, I want to investigate this problem further and decide if me and Rotterdam should go our separate ways. In this essay, I will do just that. From a Foucauldian approach, I will research the closing of the nightlife in Rotterdam. This will be done through Foucault's notion of critique. This is an attitude, an ethos, it is a philosophical way of living, where we are essentially questioning who we are, exploring the historical boundaries that define us, and trying to see if we can break free from them (Lemke, 2011, p.40). After explaining Foucault’s notion of critique, I will dive into the history of Rotterdam, then go into Rotterdam’s current governmentality, and continue with a call to the municipality. I will conclude with the verdict if Rotterdam and I should continue its relationship or if it is better to part ways.

Foucault's Notion of Critique

Foucault sought to ‘base’ critique on the notion of experience (Lemke, 2011, p.27). Foucault addresses the activity of critique; he observes that critique is informed by a ‘juridico-discursive’ style of thought, a negative practice, which can be characterised by deficit, dependency, and distance (p.29). Foucault suggests that we should reverse this negativity in a more positive direction (p.30). He characterises critique according to the following three dimensions: the activity of problematization, the art of voluntary insubordination, and the audacity to expose one’s status as a subject (p.27).

Problematization involves a shift away from merely addressing deficits in knowledge to exploring the limitations imposed by truth regimes on autonomy and democracy (Lemke, 2011, p.30). It functions as an "experience" aimed at producing new historical experiences and ways of thinking, promoting a collective and experimental approach (p.32).

The art of voluntary insubordination represents a deliberate act of resistance and opposition to governance (Lemke, 2011, p.33). Not as a universal or inherent impulse, but as a will formed through relational experiences and confrontations with specific forms of government. This acknowledges the need for critique to navigate existing norms and institutions while simultaneously challenging and questioning them (p.34).

The audacity to expose oneself is a process that involves challenging established norms of recognition and focusing on a "historical ontology of ourselves" (Lemke, 2011, p.36). It aims to explore and transgress the limits of existing identities, fostering the formation of new subjectivities and alternative norms that allow for autonomy and ethical self-formation (p.36-37).

Foucault has the desire to develop a vocabulary of critique that distances itself from judgements (Lemke, 2011, p.38) Lemke summarised Foucault’s notion of critique as follows:

There cannot be any critique without an idea of what is conceived as intolerable and unacceptable. This is why critique cannot be reduced to a theoretical concern or an epistemological enterprise of correcting mistaken knowledge, but is rather an attitude, an ethos, a philosophical life in which the critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them (p.40)

Rotterdam, Make it Happen.

Rotterdam has long been known for its identity as a working-class and entrepreneurial port city, rebuilt after extensive damage during World War II (Nientied, 2018, pp. 152-153). Its character was rooted in a no-nonsense, "roll up the sleeves" culture and a post-war reconstruction identity. However, over the past few decades, Rotterdam has undergone significant transformations (Nientied, 2018, pp. 152-153).

After the war, Rotterdam faced a so-called identity crisis, which has been attributed towards a ‘missing heart’. Significant changes began in the 1970s when the city embarked on a new urban plan, adopting mixed land use and taller building, positioning itself as a progressive city in terms of architecture and waterfront development (Nientied, 2018, p.158).

This process of reconstruction played a crucial role in shaping Rotterdam’s entrepreneurial identity, necessitating city marketing and a reimagining of the city (p. 160). In the last decade, Rotterdam has adopted several strategies to promote itself culturally. To become attractive to the upper and middle classes (Cretella and Buenger, 2016 p.3). ‘The Stadsvisie’ (urban vision), envisioned in 2007, is the city's spatial development strategy till 2030. The document is structured based on the concept that Rotterdam is falling behind in comparison to other cities within the Randstad region (Cretella and Buenger, 2016, p.3).

Rotterdam's ambition to attract middle-income groups and the resulting gentrification has led to spatial segregation between different ethnic and income groups (Nientied, 2018, p. 161). In 2014, Rotterdam's local government introduced a new narrative, defining the "DNA" of the city as International, Entrepreneurial, and Edgy (raw). This came with the city's new slogan, "Rotterdam. Make it Happen," (p. 167).

A State of Emergency

Van Houdt and Schinkel (2018) argue that the object of diversity has been a major concern for the city of Rotterdam (p.137). They say that the governing of Rotterdam consists of a permanent problematization of its population (p.136). Here they refer to the earlier mentioned Stadsvisie (urban vision) and argue that one can conclude that the city of Rotterdam wishes for a different population. ‘’This population would ideally exist as a ‘middle-class’ which is, in turn, a proxy for white, ‘autochthonous’, higher educated citizens’’ (pp.136-137). Van Houdt and Schinkel say that this has been justified by a state of emergency. ‘’This ‘state of emergency’ has conventionally been constructed by referring to the ‘type and characteristics of the population’ of Rotterdam’’ (p.137). For instance, it was suggested that Rotterdam had to prohibit low-income families in certain neighbourhoods because the neighbourhood could ‘take no more’. This measure was first an experiment in ‘the laboratory of Rotterdam’, but this later became national law. Which is called The Umbrella and Exception Law, the authors argue that this makes the role of exception explicit (p.137).

Neoliberal Communitarianism

Van Houdt and Schinkel dive further into exception and argue that the role of exception is a distinctive feature of neoliberal forms of governance (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, p. 139). In 2002, a coalition formed a novel and paradoxical formula for governing the city. A governing strategy that combines elements of both neoliberal governmentality and governmental communitarianism which the authors call: "neoliberal communitarianism." This strategy continued to dominate even after subsequent coalitions assumed power (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, p. 140).

Neoliberalism transforms the constituent elements of democracy from their distinct political character, meaning, and operation to an economic one (Brown, 2015, p.12). The spread of the hegemonic rationality of neoliberalism transforms individuals into market actors, exclusively driven by profit-seeking, identified as homo oeconomicus(p.21-22, 28). This neoliberal rationality spreads to all spheres, including the political sphere (p.21). As a result, neo-liberalization transposes democratic political principles of justice into an economic idiom, transforming not only the political organisation but also its purpose and character (p.24). People are no longer viewed as creatures of moral autonomy, freedom, or equality. Instead, they are reduced to the economic notion of human capital (p.28). The local government in Rotterdam often employs the language and techniques typical of neoliberalism, such as responsibilisation, even in domains ranging from housing policy to crime and immigrant integration. However, the authors note that this neoliberal logic is both challenged and complemented by communitarian logic (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, p. 141).

Communitarianism, like neoliberalism, is not just a political philosophy but a specific political rationality of governing. It aims to create space for community, care, and belonging while also restoring morality, norms, values, and a sense of responsibility as foundations of citizenship, family, and identity. Despite being portrayed as a contender of neoliberalism, communitarianism and neoliberalism share some common ground, especially in their critique of welfarism (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, p. 141). Welfarism is the view that morality is centrally concerned with the welfare or well-being of individuals (Keller, 2009, p.82). Moreover, the authors argue that they may even support the same techniques of governing, albeit from different ideological standpoints (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, p. 141).

In the context of Rotterdam, the city has undergone substantial transformations in its governance approaches, aiming to become a more feminine and post-industrial city. This transformation involves a blend of moralising and sovereign approaches targeting diverse populations, as well as the cultivation of a 'yupper class' while reshaping the city's image (Van Houdt & Schinkel, 2018, pp. 147-148).

Call to the Municipality

It seems like this ‘yupper class’ image does not have any space for nightclubs. The yupper-class picture consists of a peaceful city centre for the upper-class residents, without any noise. The Mayor and City Council Members keep rejecting proposals for more night catering. Their reasoning: the tension between the nightlife and living residents. They write that the nuisance for residents will increase further in the coming years since plenty of housing is rising in the centre, therefore they do not see any space for new urban nightlife (Geluk and Lewis, 2019, para. 13).

But the existing owners are struggling just as much. With the current policy management nightlife owners get lost on the desolate plain of rules, uncertainty and doubt (Dekkers, 2023a para 9). Rotterdam's nightlife is characterised by endless fighting to be allowed to keep doing business, in a temporary place. The former owners of Weelde took back the reigns; they no longer endured the so-called ''kut contracten'' and stopped. They call on the municipality not to let this happen again and to encourage young entrepreneurs (Dekkers, 2023c, para 9). They argue that the Amsterdam municipality is further ahead than Rotterdam in this respect where an explicit cultural breeding ground will open in an empty tunnel in the Southeast (para. 10).

Dekkers (2023b) asks himself the question in the journalistic platform Vers Beton: How do you find the balance between regulation and spontaneity? On the one hand, as a nightlife sector, you want subsidies and good regulations, to organise the night well as a city. On the other hand, you want the freedom to create spontaneously, and nowhere does the night flourish as richly as in temporality, emptiness, and ruin. That balance exists when nightlife involves a well-organised ecosystem, full of freedom, room for creativity and spontaneity, not too much but enough supported by a healthy infrastructure of subsidies and regulations. That symbiosis has unfortunately not yet been found in Rotterdam, he states (para. 5).

Dekkers therefore appeals to all those who shape the future city - officials, city makers, landscape architects, but also entrepreneurs and creators. Let go of the stifling rule of regulation. Let the regulation carpenter retire. Of course, there must be frameworks within which the night operates. But within those frameworks, let the entrepreneur and creator be free. Here he uses the example of Lutz Leichsenring who has long fought in Berlin for so-called 'grey zones' that are 'low regulation', where the night is allowed to flourish as it wishes, based on the idea that the night is not malleable. This lecture reminded him of Hartmut Rosa's sociology of availability (Dekkers, 2023b, para. 11)

To create order in a chaotic world, we strive to know, understand, discover, predict, calculate, control, and use everything around us, in a constant drive for growth. Rosa describes it as our striving to make the world manageable. This tendency has a 'withering' effect, alienating us from each other and the world. This urge characterises municipal night policies of recent years. Leichsenring therefore suggests that we should dare to let the night run its course, within predetermined frameworks of safety, sustainability and creativity (Dekkers, 2023b, para. 12)

Conclusion

I was on the verge of breaking up with the city of Rotterdam. But first I wanted to better understand this issue, so I turned to Michel Foucault's notion of critique, which provides a lens through which I could analyse the changing landscape of Rotterdam's nightlife.

I found out that the transformation of Rotterdam, marked by gentrification and the pursuit of a more upscale image, reflects broader neoliberal and communitarian influences. This shift in governance, combining elements of both ideologies, has affected the city's approach to diverse populations and cultural offerings. The clash between Rotterdam's aspirations for a more upscale image and the need for a vibrant nightlife has created tension. The municipality's rejection of proposals for additional night catering venues reflects the struggle to find a balance between the city's governing technique to attract the ‘yupper class' and the dream to become a world city with sparkling nightlife. In light of these challenges, a call for action has been made to those shaping the city's future. The appeal is to strike a balance between necessary regulations and the freedom for creativity and spontaneity, to create a thriving nightlife ecosystem.

So, my journey into Rotterdam has taught me a deeper understanding of the complexities of city governance. While the city's changing landscape presents challenges, it also offers an opportunity for positive transformation. The question of whether to continue or break up with Rotterdam remains, but through a Foucauldian lens and a call for balance, we can hope to find a path forward that preserves the city's dynamic character while addressing the concerns of residents. Rotterdam has evolved, and its future remains uncertain, but it is a place where change is possible, and together, we can shape that change. Therefore, I will save my break-up letter as a draft for now. And hopefully, through collaborative action, I can put this draft in the delete folder in the near future.

References

Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books (Chapters 2, 3, and 6)

Cretella, A., & Buenger, M. S. (2015). Food as creative city politics in the city of Rotterdam. Cities, 51, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.12.001

De HavenLoods (2023) Weelde stopt ermee, na de zomer is het voorbij: ‘Aan al het moois komt een eind.’| De Havenloods | Krant En Online. https://www.dehavenloods.nl/nieuws/algemeen/46289/weelde-stopt-ermee-na-de-zomer-is-het-voorbij-aan-al-het-moois-

Dekkers, J. (2023a). MONO’s closing party liet zien hoe de klager regeert. Vers Beton. https://www.versbeton.nl/2023/03/monos-closing-party-liet-zien-hoe-de-klager-regeert/

Dekkers, J. (2023b). De nacht heeft te weinig inspraak in de herontwikkeling van gebieden in

Rotterdam. Vers Beton. https://www.versbeton.nl/2023/07/de-nacht-heeft-te-weinig-inspraak-in-de-herontwikkeling-van-gebieden-in-rotterdam/

Dekkers, J. (2023c). Same shit, different night: de Rotterdamse nacht moet steeds haar oude jas aan. Vers Beton. https://www.versbeton.nl/2023/10/same-shit-different-night-de-rotterdamse-nacht-moet-steeds-haar-oude-jas-aan/

Florida, R. (2007). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York, NY: Collins.

Keller, S. (2009), Welfarism. Philosophy Compass, 4: 82-95 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00196.x

Mayer, M. (2013). First world urban activism. City, 17(1), 5–19.

Nientied, P. (2018). Hybrid Urban Identity—The Case of Rotterdam. Current Urban Studies, 6, 152-173. https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2018.61008

Lemke, T. (2011). Critique and Experience in Foucault. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411404

Lewis, M. G. T. (2023). Aboutaleb houdt informatie achter in de raadsdiscussie over meer nachthoreca. Vers Beton. https://www.versbeton.nl/2019/09/aboutaleb-houdt-informatie-achter-in-de-raadsdiscussie-over-meer-nachthoreca/

Oostrom C. (2023). Rotterdamse Club Vibes stopt na 25 jaar: ‘Het is niet meer wat het was’ https://www.ad.nl/rotterdam/rotterdamse-club-vibes-stopt-na-25-jaar-het-is-niet-meer-wat-het-was~a391f852/?cb=8a3d16a099c35b355643dbe4ef712745&auth_rd=1

OPEN Rotterdam. (2023). Poing Club kondigt sluiting aan: ‘We zullen de community nooit in de steek laten.’ OPEN Rotterdam. https://openrotterdam.nl/poing-club-kondigt-sluiting-aan-we-zullen-de-community-nooit-in-de-steek-laten/

Owen, D. (2002). Criticism and Captivity: On Genealogy and Critical Theory. European

Journal of Philosophy, 10(2), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00158

Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.

Van Houdt, F., Schinkel, W. (2018). Laboratory Rotterdam. Logics of Exceptionalism in the

Governing of Urban Populations. In: Scholten, P., Crul, M., van de Laar, P. (eds) Coming to Terms with Superdiversity. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96041-8_7