Conceptualizing Culture in Discourses of Policy and Reform in Amsterdam Gail Meryl Zuckerwise ...

219 Pages·2015·12.16 MB·English

by  Gail M. Zuckerwise

Conceptualizing Culture in Discourses of Policy and Reform in Amsterdam
Gail Meryl Zuckerwise
UCL
PhD

I, Gail Meryl Zuckerwise confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where
information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis

Abstract:
This project addresses the relationship between the concept of culture in cultural policies
and the culture that is attributed to the identity of Amsterdam. Culture is becoming increasingly
central to discourses of policy and reform in particular ways, which are exemplified by the case of
Amsterdam that is studied. I use Critical Discourse Analysis to examine four case studies. This
method enables me to divide my case studies into three categories of discourses of reform:
Administrative/policy discourses, Discourses of intervention and Academic discourses. I analyze
each discourse separately in order to present a holistic conceptualization of culture in the context of
reform. I illustrate how culture is a concept that becomes relevant and significant in discourses of
reform in different ways. Thus, alongside my aim of analyzing culture as a diversely significant
concept, this project also intends to present CDA as a productive method for theorizing and
analyzing contemporary culture.
Amsterdam presents a city where urban policies and reforms can be described as cultural
policies and reforms. It is a case where we can study 1) this kind of policy and reform that are
described as cultural; 2) the shift in the context of policies and reforms, in relation to a changing
concept of culture. For this study of culture and cultural policy, I suggest that Foucault’s concept of
governmentality is productive. This concept is derived from the terms “government” and
“mentality”, offering a tool for analyzing the convergence of technologies of government work and a
new political rationality. In this case, it is a concept that is productive for analyzing how discourses of
reform relate to a particular rationality that is linked to the concept of culture in the city. This is
achieved through case studies that analyze the governmentality of reform in relation to identities,
industries, places and practices that are associated with culture in Amsterdam.

1
1.
  INTRODUCING
 CULTURE
 IN
 THIS
 PROJECT
 ............................................................
 9

1.1
  INTRODUCING
 CULTURE:
 DEFINITIONS
 ..........................................................................................
 9

1.2
  INTRODUCING
 KEY
 SCHOLARSHIP:
 THE
 FOUNDATIONS
 OF
 MY
 APPROACH
 FOR
 RESEARCH
 AND

ANALYSIS
 ...................................................................................................................................................
 10

1.3
  INTRODUCING
 CULTURE:
 THE
 GOVERNMENTALITY
 OF
 CULTURAL
 POLICIES
 AND
 REFORMS
 ....
 17

2.
  METHODOLOGY:
 CRITICAL
 DISCOURSE
 ANALYSIS
 ............................................
 19

2.1
  CRITICAL
 DISCOURSE
 ANALYSIS:
 INTRODUCTION
 .......................................................................
 19

2.2
  CRITICAL
 DISCOURSE
 ANALYSIS:
 DEFINING
 THE
 TERMS
 .............................................................
 22

2.3
  CRITICAL
 DISCOURSE
 ANALYSIS:
 SELECTING
 CASE
 STUDIES
 .......................................................
 25

3.
  A
 POLICY/ADMINISTRATIVE
 DISCOURSE
 OF
 REFORM:
 CULTURE
 IN
 THE

CONTEXT
 OF
 CITY
 MARKETING
 AND
 BRANDING
 ........................................................
 31

3.1
  I
 AMSTERDAM:
 AN
 INTRODUCTION
 TO
 CITY
 MARKETING
 AND
 BRANDING
 IN
 AMSTERDAM
 ....
 33

3.2
  I
 AMSTERDAM:
 THE
 DEVELOPMENT
 OF
 A
 STRATEGY
 FOR
 MARKETING
 AND
 BRANDING

AMSTERDAM
 .............................................................................................................................................
 35

3.3
  I
 AMSTERDAM:
 THE
 MAKING
 OF…THE
 CITY
 MARKETING
 OF
 AMSTERDAM
 ..............................
 48

3.4
  I
 AMSTERDAM:
 CONCLUDING
 REMARKS
 .......................................................................................
 68

4.
  A
 POLICY/ADMINISTRATIVE
 DISCOURSE
 OF
 REFORM:
 CULTURE
 IN

CONTEXTS
 OF
 SOCIO-­‐SPATIAL
 INTERVENTIONS
 ........................................................
 73

4.1
  PROJECT
 1012:
 QUALITY
 FOR
 THE
 HEART
 OF
 AMSTERDAM
 .....................................................
 74

4.2
  PROJECT
 1012:
 FUTURE
 PERSPECTIVES
 .....................................................................................
 78

4.3
  PROJECT
 1012:
 UNDER
 CONSTRUCTION
 .....................................................................................
 97

4.4
  PROJECT
 1012:
 CONCLUDING
 REMARKS
 ..................................................................................
 110

5.
  DISCOURSES
 FROM
 INTERVENTION:
 RESISTING
 AND
 RESPONDING
 TO

CONTENT
 AND
 CONTEXTS
 OF
 POLICY
 AND
 REFORM
 .............................................
 117

5.1
  DISCOURSES
 FROM
 INTERVENTIONS:
 RED
 A.I.R
 .......................................................................
 118

5.2
  RED
 A.I.R:
 THE
 PROGRAM
 .........................................................................................................
 122

5.3
  RED
 A.I.R:
 LAURENCE
 AËGERTER
 ..............................................................................................
 126

5.4
  RED
 A.I.R:
 ALEXIS
 BLAKE
 AND
 CONCLUDING
 PANEL
 DISCUSSION
 ..........................................
 131

5.5
  DISCOURSES
 FROM
 INTERVENTIONS:
 CONCLUDING
 REMARKS
 ................................................
 140

2
6.
  AN
 ACADEMIC
 DISCOURSE
 ON
 REFORM:
 “RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF

PROSTITUTION”
 ..................................................................................................................
 148

6.1
  RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 AN
 ACADEMIC
 DISCOURSE
 ON
 REFORM
 IN

AMSTERDAM’S
 RED
 LIGHT
 DISTRICT
 ...................................................................................................
 148

6.2
  RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 INTRODUCTION
 ..............................................
 150

6.3
  RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 PLACING
 PROSTITUTION
 ...............................
 154

6.4
  RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 GOVERNMENTALITY
 IN
 AMSTERDAM’S
 RED

LIGHT
 DISTRICT
 .....................................................................................................................................
 159

6.5
  RE-­‐MAKING
 A
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 FROM
 RED
 LIGHT
 TO
 BLACK
 LIGHT
 ...............
 162

6.6
  RE-­‐MAKING
 THE
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 A
 COLLECTION
 OF
 DOCUMENTS
 OF
 REDLIGHT

ART
 AMSTERDAM
 ..................................................................................................................................
 166

6.7
  RE-­‐MAKING
 THE
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 REDLIGHT
 ART
 ..........................................
 169

6.7.1
  REDLIGHT
 ART:
 ACHIM
 LENGERER:
 HOLD
 ON,
 I,
 TOO,
 AM
 DRIFTING…(A
 SPEECH
 PERFORMANCE

WITH
 KEVIN
 CREGAN)
 .............................................................................................................................................
 169

6.7.2
  REDLIGHT
 ART:
 ALEXIS
 BLAKE:
 IN/OUT/EITHER/NEITHER,
 REFLECTIONS
 OF
 A
 CHOICE
 .
 171

6.7.3
  REDLIGHT
 ART:
 LAURENCE
 AËGERTER:
 OPENING
 SOON/OPENING
 NOW
 ....................................
 174

6.8
  RE-­‐MAKING
 THE
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 AFTERWORD
 ..............................................
 175

6.9
  RE-­‐MAKING
 THE
 LANDSCAPE
 OF
 PROSTITUTION:
 CONCLUDING
 REMARKS
 ............................
 178

7.
  CONCLUSIONS
 ..............................................................................................................
 182

8.
  WORKS
 CITED
 ..............................................................................................................
 194

APPENDIX
 A:
 IMAGES
 REFERRED
 TO
 IN
 CHAPTER
 3
 ..............................................
 199

APPENDIX
 B:
 IMAGES
 REFERRED
 TO
 IN
 CHAPTER
 4
 ..............................................
 201

APPENDIX
 C:
 IMAGES
 REFERRED
 TO
 IN
 CHAPTER
 5
 ..............................................
 211

APPENDIX
 D:
 IMAGES
 REFERRED
 TO
 IN
 CHAPTER
 6
 ..............................................
 218

3
PREFACE:
 THE
 GENESIS
 OF
 THIS
 PROJECT

This project evolved from research that I conducted as an undergraduate student of
anthropology at Amherst College. I spent four months in Amsterdam, where I first became
interested in the different ways that people experienced and interacted in the Amsterdam Red Light
District1. It seemed that almost everyone who engaged with this part of the city was either visiting or
working in the Red Light District. While I observed canal houses along the narrow streets of the
area, I was overwhelmed by the majority of people in this area who were obviously tourists, and it
seemed like there were scarcely any locals populating this part of the city.
In the summer of 2005, I returned to Amsterdam for my undergraduate thesis research,
which focused on sex workers’ positive experiences in Amsterdam’s Red Light District (Zuckerwise,
2005). I interviewed sex workers, and I questioned how the words “liberal” and “tolerant” related to
the ideas and experiences of people living in the city and those working in and around the sex
industry and those visiting Amsterdam’s Red Light District. Through sex workers’ positive
experiences, I also learned of the stigmatization that has always been factored into discourses on
prostitution in Amsterdam. From residents, who often acknowledged the historic and economic
significance of the Red Light District, I learned that it was common practice to avoid passing through
the central streets of this area (even if their detours made their journeys longer). In general, the
residents took pride in the history they identified with this area, and they recognized part of the city’s
identity in the Red Light District; they also acknowledged that prostitution had always played a part
in the life of the city and was not in itself problematic.2 On the other hand, many objected to the
commoditization of the city’s culture and the masses of tourists that experienced Amsterdam
through certain perspectives and practices in these spaces.
I returned to the city in 2006 and enrolled in graduate school at the University of
Amsterdam. Over the nearly five years I spent in the city, I was in the midst of reforms and
developments that were taking place in the city center. This was especially obvious through the
manifestation of the City’s3 “I amsterdam” branding campaign throughout the city. I also noticed the

1 Amsterdam has several red light districts, but this paper focuses on the largest and most renowned district,
also known by locals as De Wallen. Prostitution policies and legislation apply to red light districts throughout
the city and the country, while these are overseen at the municipal level. Nevertheless, from a global
perspective, this main red light district is the face of the Amsterdam Red light District, and often prostitution in
the Netherlands.
2 It is worth noting that policy makers also framed prostitution as part of the social reality of the city that was
not inherently problematic when they decided to lift the ban on brothels and legalize the sex industry, in 2000
(Outshoorn, 2001).
3 Throughout this thesis, I refer to the City as a subject or agent within my analyses. I do not intend to reify the
city. When I use the City with a capital C, this should be understood as a reference to the City of Amsterdam,
by which I mean the municipal council of the City of Amsterdam. In contrast, when I speak of the city with a
lowercase c, I am speaking of the city as the geographical location.
4
reduction of brothels in the Red Light District that was part of a larger agenda for culture-based
policies and reforms in the city center. As a researcher, I found this particularly interesting in relation
to my prior research about the city’s cultural image and identity.
For my research MA thesis in Cultural Analysis, I presented a genealogical analysis of the
spaces of sex work in Amsterdam (Zuckerwise, 2010). Through this process, I became familiar with
the context of my current project, and I gained a clear idea of the available resources that I could use
for my research along with an awareness of the challenges or limitations that this context presented.
Importantly, I also began collecting data that I intended to use for ongoing research, and I made
contacts that I expected would provide important resources and information in later stages of my
research.
This PhD thesis addresses the contemporary context of Amsterdam’s city center, and my
research specifically focuses on policies and reforms that are affecting the areas in the historical city
center. This part of the city has a long history as an international hub of various kinds of exchanges,
at least dating back to its thriving port for overseas trade in the 17th century. My approach towards
research for this project developed from my conceptualization of culture as something that exists
through multiple perspectives and different interactions between people and their environments.
Through researching specific case studies in contemporary Amsterdam, my objective is to analyze the
concept of culture in contexts where culture becomes part of reform and development strategies.
* * *
Locating myself within the interdisciplinary fields of this project
This project aims to make a contribution to the field of cultural studies in the first instance.
At the same time, I expect that its findings will also be relevant to scholarship and perspectives that
share my interest in the city as a sight for studying cultural policies and strategies for cultural reform.
This project evolved as the result of changes that I noticed over the time that I spent in Amsterdam.
However, it also is the product of the different perspectives that I took during my research in the
city. When I first went to Amsterdam, as an Anthropology student, I was interested in studying the
Red Light District as part of a liberal and tolerant culture of sexuality in the city. I questioned how
liberalism and tolerance related to both sexuality and general ideas and attributes that were linked to
the image and identity of the city. The first research that I conducted in Amsterdam and the Red
Light District was guided by my anthropological training and perspective, so it primarily involved
methods that are associated with ethnographic research, including observations and interviews. When
I returned to Amsterdam in 2006, my academic perspective began to shift, as I enrolled in courses
that offered a more critical perspective from which to engage in cultural analyses. Instead of
positioning myself as an academic (anthropological) observer, looking at the context of my research
from an outsider’s position, I began to consider myself as both inside and outside of the cultural
landscape that I was considering. I was not a tourist, but I was not an Amsterdammer, and while I
was resident of the city, I was often aware of the fact that many natives of the city regarded me as a
5
visitor, if not a tourist. From this position- betwixt and between inside and outside- I had an
interesting view from which to observe and analyze ideas and experiences of Amsterdam’s culture,
image and identity. When the I Amsterdam brand appeared, my situation as neither an insider nor
outsider was reiterated, as I found myself unsure about how I connected with this brand or if I
should embrace it.
The emergence of the city’s brand sparked an interest in me that extended beyond my
previous anthropological intrigue in what I had identified as unique (liberalism and tolerance) about
the city’s sex work industry. As I continued to research and reflect on the policies and reforms that
were taking place in the city, my understanding of my own situation changed; I began to question
how I was both inside and outside and how this related to my identification with Amsterdam in
terms of my experiences of the local-global nexus.
Whereas I had previously researched the city’s Red Light District as something that set it
apart from other cities- at least from the global perspective-, I recognized that Amsterdam’s decision
to use city marketing and branding to promote itself around the world was not unique. On the other
hand, Amsterdam continued to promote its Red Light District through its new approach towards city
marketing. I began to wonder how this would impact how locals and tourists experienced and
perceived the city and particularly its qualities and spaces that had been known for their distinctive
appeal. My shifting interest towards the strategic city marketing and the I Amsterdam brand was
reflected in my approach towards research in the city. By directing my focus towards city marketing, I
was entering the realm of urban policies and reform and how they related to cultural attributes and
experiences in the city and the City’s plans to reform the image and identity of Amsterdam.
Importantly, my ultimate goal was to understand how strategies and policies for city marketing
related to and influenced the cultural image and identity of the city. Additionally, I questioned if the
policies and reforms could be seen as cultural themselves. Therefore, it seemed that I taken up the
task of understanding how a concept of culture could be studied in relation to urban policies- or how
urban polices become cultural policies that impact cultural identities and experiences in the city.
My prior studies of the Red Light District had largely been informed by interviews with sex
workers and residents and genealogical studies of the spaces of sex work in Amsterdam. In order to
understand how local policies were transforming the socio-cultural life and space of the city and
reflecting cultural aspects of the city, I realized that it would be necessary to approach my research
differently. My overarching aim was to analyze how contemporary policies were impacting cultural
attributes of the city and how people came to associate these with Amsterdam’s image and identity.
Thus, my project required the incorporation of urban policy and planning perspectives and more
critical cultural analyses. Ultimately, this project seeks to contribute an analysis that can illuminate the
increasing significance of culture as a concept in urban policy and planning. In order to achieve this,
My aim is to show how culture is increasingly central to urban policies and reforms. In my
6
conclusions, I hope to present an approach for theorizing culture in contexts where policies are
intervening the life and space of the city.

* * *
Contemporary policies and reforms have become the focal points of my research, and
culture itself is introduced as a concept as well as the object of my analyses.
My hypothesis is that Amsterdam offers an example of a specific kind of convergence of
culture and politics within the contexts of urban reform. I conceptualize this convergence as: culture
+ politics = cultural policy and influential and resulting (cultural) identities, industries, places and
practices; the contexts of urban reform refers to both 1) discourses of urban reform AND 2)
Amsterdam and specific places where reforms are taking place.
My analytical imperative is to conceptualize this convergence of politics and culture in
terms of what is “cultural” in the contexts of reform in central Amsterdam. In order to achieve this:
My central research question asks: 1) What is the relationship between the “culture” of reform
policies and strategies and the “culture” that is attributed to identities, industries, places and practices in the city? 2)
How do individuals, industries, places and practices engage with cultural policies and reforms?
To unpack this question further, I ask:
1) How do different individuals engage with cultural policies and reforms in their everyday
lives/practices?
2) How do cultural industries enter into discourses/policies of reform?
3) How are places reformed through policies/interventions that explicitly/implicitly impact
the everyday life and concept/content of culture in particular spaces?
4) How do socio-spatial, institutional and discursive practices impact and reflect the image
and identity of the city in terms of what is associated with culture in Amsterdam?
My methodology is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which I apply to three kinds of
discourses of reform that I describe as: 1) the administrative/policy discourse 2) the discourse from
interventions 3) the academic discourse. It is important to note that there are various ways that CDA
is used in the humanities and social sciences, and I elaborate on my particular approach in Chapter 2.
My approach is to study culture as an empty circle that I intend to fill through my analyses. I use
the image of the circle because there is no starting point or end to culture, just like there is no place
where a circle begins and ends. Through my research and analyses, my focus will be on specific ways
that culture acquires meaning through discourses and processes that are intentionally and
unintentionally influencing how culture is experienced and expressed in Amsterdam’s city center. For
this project, it is critical that culture is understood as mobile, relational and situated within particular
discourses, at particular times and places. If we consider these ideas in relation to the circle, we can
understand them better. A circle (like a wheel) is mobile; if we fill in one piece of a cultural puzzle,
and the circle turns, this piece might shift and look different, or be perceived differently from
7
another perspective or situation, reflecting the way that culture and cultural elements are mobile,
relational and situated in times and places.
When I describe culture as relational, I mean that it is formed and informed through social
relations and processes. Because it is situated in specific times and discourses, it is contingent on the
physical, socio-spatial context that I am researching, as well as the materials that I am analyzing:
culture is framed- contextualized- in terms of the experiences and perspectives of individuals and
their interactions and social worlds, and through the way people speak about culture. This interactive
aspect of culture is also accounted for in my understanding of culture as social and contextual, which
is why my method takes into account how interactions and relations influence how culture is
experienced, expressed and perceived. By analyzing culture as social, my intention is to illuminate a
network of power relations that processes culture as both a concept in and effect of discourses of
reform, through identifying how culture comes forth through policies as well as social and spatial
processes and practices.
The concept of culture should be acknowledged as contingent upon the myriad social
relations, perspectives, practices and identities that are considered in the project. From this point of
view, this project begins with the analytical imperative of conceptualizing culture without a priori
accepting that culture can be empirically or singularly understood. Thus, culture becomes the subject
of inquiry, as an empty circle around which my analytical framework has formed.
In the following section, I briefly introduce scholarship that has reflected on the concept of
culture and has contributed to my view that it is critical to account for the complexity of this term
and its significance in discourses that span multiple academic disciplines and enter diverse social and
policy agendas. Then, I present key scholarship that has informed my approach towards research and
analysis in this process. I introduce important concepts that are beneficial for studying contemporary
reforms in Amsterdam as well as remaining questions that come forth as a result of particular
perspectives and approaches.

8
1. Introducing
 Culture
 in
 this
 Project

1.1 Introducing Culture: Definitions

This project begins from questions that revolve around the idea and significance of culture. I
am not the first person to reflect on this term, or to point out that it has become increasingly difficult
to define, as it gains relevance in various ways. Raymond Williams suggests, “Culture is one of the
two or three most complicated words in the English language”. He continues to explain that this is
mainly due to the fact that “it has now come to be used for important concepts in several distinct
intellectual disciplines and in several distinct and incompatible systems of thought” (Williams, 1976,
p. 87).
In anthropology, the discipline often primarily associated with studying culture/cultures, the
debate on the definition can be traced back to the late 19th century with Edward Tylor (1871), who
explained that different groups existed on a spectrum from savage to civilized, presenting an
evolutionist view of cultures, which were seen as complex wholes. Throughout the 20th century,
other definitions emerged with new emphases, for example on more symbolic aspects of culture or
the role of social heritage and tradition. In 1952, Kroeber and Klukholn published a text, with the
assistance of Untereiner and Meyer, in which they reviewed 164 different definitions of culture
divided into six categories (descriptive, historical, normative, psychological, structural and genetic).
While this text was published over 60 years ago and did not claim to be complete at the time, it
exemplifies the various ways that scholars have approached and defined culture, which has continued
and diversified. This merely goes to illustrate Williams’ point about the complexity of the term
“culture”.
While it is impossible and unproductive to present a complete history or review of the word
“culture”, it is important to introduce particular ways that it has evolved within the field of cultural
studies. I am primarily interested in cultural studies because this is the field that has concerned itself
with the study of contemporary culture, which is at the core of this project. Of course, like the
concept that is central to cultural studies, the field is complex and has included many different and
controversial views.
The field of cultural studies emerged in Great Britain in the 1950s and took form in the
1960s with the creation of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of
Birmingham. Richard Hoggart, who founded the center, was influential with the view that culture
should be studied in relation to individuals’ lived experiences, which could not be considered in
objectified terms. Raymond Williams continues to be regarded as one of the most profoundly
influential theorists in the development of cultural studies, beginning with the publication of his book
Culture and Society, in 1958. The book focused on textual representations and cultural ways of seeing
9
and began to develop an idea of culture as something that emerged through ways of life, meanings
and patterns (Turner, 1996, p. 43). The work of Stuart Hall who assisted Hogart and then became
director of the center in 1969 has continued to be largely associated with the center and the field of
cultural studies. “For Hall, what is at stake is the connection that cultural studies seeks to make to
matters of power and cultural politics. That is, to an exploration of representations of and ‘for’
marginalized social groups and the need for cultural change” (Barker, 2008, p. 5). Beginning in the
1970s, the concept of “hegemony” entered into cultural studies, with culture seen as a form of
hegemony. This term, associated with Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, describes “relations of
domination which are not visible as such” (During, 1993, p. 4). Alongside this perception of culture,
cultural studies began to focus on critiques of the hegemonic effects of culture, which also
emphasized links between politics and culture in the field. Another concept that is often critiqued in
a similar way is ideology. Broadly defined, ideology is the set of discourses or views that construct the
social reality through perceptions of common sense or norms that can even seem natural and true.
Both hegemony and ideology are concepts that are used to study the relationship between culture
and power, which is central to the field:
Cultural studies is concerned with the analysis of cultural forms and activities in the context of
relations of power which condition their production, circulation, deployment and, of course effects
(Bennett, 1998, p. 60).
The link between politics and culture has continued developing in the expanding area of
“cultural policy studies”. During (1993) identifies two forms of this approach to cultural studies, “one
economically orientated and pragmatic, the other more theoretical” (p. 16). Whereas economic
cultural policy analysis approaches cultural production and distribution from the perspective of
optimizing resources and returns, the theoretical branch of cultural policy theory is derived from
Foucault’s later work on governmentality, arguing that culture is a “mechanism for transmitting
forms of ‘governmentality’” (During, 1993, p. 16). This project begins in accordance with this
theoretical branch of cultural policy studies, insofar as I agree that culture is increasingly used as a
technology of policies, resulting in the upsurge of cultural policies and their social, economic and
political significance. However, instead of beginning with an idea of culture that enables me to assess
the impact or efficacy of reform policies in terms of preconceived cultural content/qualities, my aim
is to analyze discourses of policies and reforms in order to theorize the governmentality of (cultural)
reform.
1.2 Introducing Key Scholarship: the foundations of my approach for research and analysis

This project focuses on specific social and spatial situations within the city where cultural
policies and strategies are intervening in social life and space. I hypothesized that these cultural
policies intervened in the social life and space of the city through what could be analyzed as the
10