The place shown in the picture is Doel. Have you heard of Doel before? The tiny village that was to be demolished to make room for the Port of Antwerp? This would lead to the displacement of all the villagers of Doel. Well, this is a common phenomenon: the destruction of a so-called insignificant place to make room for a modern, economic growth engine. For Tom Fassaert this was inspiration for a documentary: Angel in Doel.
Fassaerts wanted to be a non-judgmental observer, listening to the everyday conversations with the inhabitants at Emilienne’s kitchen table. The table is a familiar place where the people told their stories about Doel and their interpersonal relationships. Throughout the documentary, Emilienne’s kitchen becomes a place of meaning. A place where Emilienne felt secure to confide with her village friends about the changes in Doel and the fact that she did not want to move out. Doel is her home. The pub, the street-art, the cats, the church, the streets, the graveyards with the spirits of past ancestors all serve as a demonstration of what the citizens believe Doel stands for.
You cannot just ‘up and at ‘em’ leave a place. The villagers have made Doel theirs. There is a certain importance of materiality in place-based processes that cannot be reconciled in a neighbouring village because there is an element in place-based objects that leads to connectedness. There are spatial relations between the people and objects that make Doel significant to the inhabitants. You cannot just move the graves of the dead when there are century old stories connected to them. You cannot just split up neighbours who have relied a lifetime on each other. However, the municipality had already decided that the harbour had to expand.
The citizens of Doel were not part of this decision making process. However, Kim and Kim (2008) argue that everyday talk is just as important as voting for the political system, to achieve a deliberative democracy. Everyday talk between the few people that live there, shapes the public opinion and can eventually strengthen the voice when they argue for the same goal. We could see that other discourses were going on in the town, like the signs on the streets (‘Doel Blijft’). This shows an activist approach of defending the public opinion that Fassaerts also highlights.
Yes, Doel may only be home to 18 individuals, but can you really put a price on the value that Doel has for the inhabitants? So it seems. They did not have the autonomy to be in the decision-making process determining whether the expansion plan should include the destruction of their home or not. Instead, they were encouraged to accept a sum of money by selling their homes to the harbour.
But, how can inhabitants be taken seriously in terms of governance when instead of having autonomy, they are only given an audacious package plan? Then what is the quality of our democracy today? The port of Antwerp is expected to generate a vast amount of jobs and new companies, creasing Belgium’s overall GDP. However great that sounds, the question is how that GDP is distributed between the citizens? Are the citizens of Doel going to benefit from this plan? Do you think this is the right way to solve a situation like this?
Salome Barnhoorn, Karoline Hansen, Iris van Ogtrop
References:
Kim, J. & E.J. Kim (2008). Theorizing Dialogic Deliberation: Everyday Political Talk as Communicative Action and Dialogue. Communication Theory (18) (2008), 51–70.
Comments
Post a Comment