**4.7 Reinforcement of communal resilience**

A common observation is that people who have made social progress in the neighborhood, want to return of it to the benefit of the community in the neighborhood. It is partly the result of an agreement at the start of participation into projects (B). This way of social return is institutionalized by the education of experience experts. However, the drive to contribute to communal resilience gets internalized or was intrinsic from the start. D gives a salient explanation: 'I regard it as an intrinsic motivation by a group whose members have encountered hardship, a motivation to give something back. That makes not only yourself resilient, but also the community of which a part of'. However, D adds that a neighborhood needs a mix of people who serve communal resilience and people who do not succeed to overcome disadvantages by themselves.

As noted before, the women play a frontier role. Mother who have experienced and overcome disadvantages, have unionized in a part of the neighborhoods (J; B). Young women who have graded at the higher professional education and university, show responsibility for their family and the community H points at the fact that boys from disadvantages neighborhood perform less well on school. B relates it to barriers that children from non-Western migrant families encounter. Even boys who have taken the hurdle of primary school rating, often fail to grade on the top level of the secondary school', B says to her regret.

### **4.8 Impeding interventions and conditions**

In the set of interviews, this topic is 1.7 times more scored than fostering interventions and conditions has done. Moreover, the statements of the interviewees are less ambiguous. Almost all text fragments fit in obvious sub codings.

Inequality in the distribution of opportunities is mentioned by a large majority as a cause why people fail to be resilient. The rating by staffs of primary schools is mostly pointed at. Pupils of disadvantaged neighborhood receive lower ratings whereas other pupils receive high ratings. A personal example is given of an underrating of four levels. Parents with higher incomes, pay for training their children to higher test scores (E). It is not only this rating practice. 'A part of the teachers of the secondary schools repeatedly tell pupils that they are a total loss. After some time they will lose

#### *An Explorative Perspective on the Resilience in Neighborhoods in the Netherlands DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98818*

the believe in themselves', B relates. Some teachers are demotivated and feel misacknowledged in their professional autonomy. Furthermore, schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods are understaffed, underqualified, or both (H). Some respondents mention the bad relationship between police and boys from the neighborhood (B; J). 'Why do you work in a neighborhood of which 97% of the population should not be in the Netherlands anyway?', one interviewee asks rhetorically. The interviewee refers to opinions of policemen and teachers inspired by right-wing politicians.

Both interventions and conditions are affected by an incapacity or an unwillingness (J) of local officials to understand and relate to the everyday live in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Moreover, the individual differences in the problems of people, their social situations, their life stories and traits do not fit in a policy frame. For instance, people are advised to search for support in their social network, while they lack such a safety net. 'Youth work at a community center is opened till 5 PM. Then it just starts. It is bureaucratized', H states. As a consequence, interventions are chosen and conditions are shaped which impede people in their search for solutions and opportunities. There is clear majority that contributes to this explanation. People become entangled in what is described as an impeding bureaucracy. This observation as well is shared by most interviewees. A remarkable observation is that an organization in the frontline require employees to be bureaucratic competent in order to help people in their problems with other organizations (A). It is maybe a level problem. 'To the city, the neigborhood is not a managable unit', D holds.

Six interviewees critize the way of working by tendering and contracting. 'There is more competition among welfare organizations than among private corporations', B illustrates. Organizations are forced to compete instead of to cooperate. Organizations do not gather people, but launch concepts. It is smart but not wise to compete on quantify, B explains. In the interaction with local authorities business parlance is expressed such as unrolling and upscaling and talking about neighborhoods as were they businesses. 'People are carriers of initiatives in the neighborhoods. You cannot upscale people', A argues. 'Not what is needed in the society, is leading. It saddens me', C says.

Two interviewees signalize that people feel let down by the institutions (A; C). This feeling is expressed by white people with low incomes and little education as well. 'People who feel like that, become susceptible for men who want to abuse their state of mind', G relates. When inequality in normal resilience trajectories is experienced time by time, young people are more easily seduced by the luxury showed by peers who make a career in a criminal trajectories, G states.

Interviewees indicate distrust as a strong impediment. Public services are set-ip with distrust in citizens in mind (A; G). G refers to the day-care surtax affair. People in disadvantaged neighborhood, do not trust institutions anymore (J; G). In interactions with officials they get questions which display distrust. People have fear of consequences of such interactions, like getting your children out of custody (J). In contacts with commercial suppliers, the level playing field is absent. The examples of business fraud fuels a distrust in the neo-liberal policy of the government, E states.

Finally, two interviewees (C: G) state that local and national officials do not relate to the planet either. There is no response on initiatives in neighborhoods on sustainability, whereas the big opportunities for climate action like the international airport and the sea ports are unbothered (C). It is an example of what E calls a lack of level playing field in the society. E puts to the fore an ecological argument. 'We impede resilience by creating monocultures, in housing (E; F), in agriculture (E). 'Diversity is the element that contributes to resilience of social and ecological systems. Just that element we lose sight of', E substantiates.

### **4.9 Inflicting more disadvantages**

Through debates on public and social media, the experience of discrimination is enhanced (B; D). It induces fall back in problematic behavior by young people you are trying to keep out of the trouble, B and D say in equivocal phrases. Distrust is very contagious and reciprocal in interactions (B; D; J) The distrust showed by officials of some institutions, makes people averse of institutions in general. Through this avoidance additional problems will emerge (J). Inequality of opportunities on schools, the unequal risk of being halted or arrested (B; J), confirms boys and young men in their conviction that they will be discriminated permanently. It discourages a search for solutions of their other problems. The feeling of being let down by society expedites the step to substance abuse or delinquency, E argues. It makes problems rather unsolvable. Inflicting additional problems without any concern or empathy for the victims is in the heart a dehumanizing treatment of citizens, E adds.

#### **4.10 Serendipities**

'Think great, act small' is a slogan cited in one of the interviews. An example is displayed by a neighbor who fights for appropriate education of the talented daughter of his illiterate neighbors. Starting from the first people who succeed, a growing web of resilient citizens can activated to break through the adversity. Another insight is found in the metaphor 'In the eye of the hurricane, it is quiet'. As soon as people try to improve their situations, they are faced by conditions of regulation which bounce them back in adversity. The metaphor holds as well for public officials and professionals who want to change detrimental practices. They are faced with misunderstanding, resistance, and counteracts. They have to be resilient themselves as well, and need to be supported by superiors with an open mind. However, 'from a position of power, you cannot see resilience'. Change will require that people stand up, and emerge as leaders. The subject of change extends from social action to climate action. The inability and unwillingness of politicians and their officials to relate to citizens, to understand their needs, and to make use of their individual talent and collective initiatives perpetuates inaction.
