Social Mix and Passive Revolution. A Neo-Gramscian Analysis of the Social Mix Rhetoric in Flanders, Belgium

Abstract

Belgium's housing policy has always been instrumental in the pillarisation process. As a consequence, two competing historical models have existed: first, a model promoted by the socialist pillar based on social rental housing in urban settings; second, the model put forward by the hegemonic Catholic party, emphasising the promotion of homeownership of single-family dwellings in rural settings. When this second, anti-urban model, became the main housing model for the masses in the post-war period, its spatial layout was one of sprawl and disinvestment in urban neighbourhoods. However, from the 1970s onwards, various actors have contested this policy. In response, policy makers have turned to a discourse of inner-city social mix. However, this discourse was barely translated into practice and did not affect the hegemonic model. Following Gramsci, this paper analyses how social mix has primarily served as an instrument for passive revolution, by deviating and disempowering counter-hegemonic attacks on the leading model of suburban homeownership.

Urban renewal without displacement? Belgium’s ‘housing contract experiment’ and the risks of gentrification

“…These examples illustrate that gentrification has become part and parcel of urban policy and that already disadvantaged groups may bear the burden (Atkinson 2000;Smith 2006). In this context, it has been argued that the rhetoric of social mixing masks displacement processes and thus establishes gentrification by stealth rather than force (Bridge et al 2012) The urban policies of the Belgian regional governments of Flanders and Brussels are in line with these general trends (Loopmans et al 2007;Loopmans 2008;Loopmans et al 2010;Van Criekingen 2008.…”

“…Flanders, which is under strong Anglo-Saxon ideological influence, has adopted the neoliberal urban development approach as found in the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. For years, Flemish cities have promoted gentrification under the pretext of social mixing (Loopmans 2008;Loopmans et al 2010).…”

“…The critical analysis of this case enables us to address the problem, observed by Lees (2003), that gentrification researchers have focused more on criticizing extant policies than engaging with policy and thinking through concrete alternatives. The most recent contributions to the debate Loopmans et al 2010;Bridge et al 2012) make abundantly clear that the rhetoric of social mix or revitalization can mask attempts to displace poor households. But they also highlight a need to explore how renewal can be designed so that it (also or primarily) benefits weaker groups on the housing market.…”

Geographies of Whiteness and Wealth: White, Middle Class Discourses on Segregation and Social Mix in Flanders, Belgium

“…Every policy document that has been published in Flanders about urban renewal since the 1970s has been based on the assumption that it is necessary to bring the middle classes back to the central city (De Decker, , p. 477). While the lure of double‐income families was certainly inspired by tax motivations, policy makers also seemed to be convinced that underprivileged people have more chances to climb the social ladder when they share their residential environment with more privileged people (Loopmans, De Decker, & Kesteloot, , p. 188). Already in the beginning of the 1980s, a Christian Democratic minister explained that the “attraction of newcomers must focus on a demographic rejuvenation and revival of neighborhoods for the benefit of those who already live in the neighborhood” (Akkermans, , p. 57).…”

La qualité du logement comme variable environnementale : l'exemple de la région urbaine de Liège (Wallonie)

“…247-248) expliquent le phénomène de périurbanisa-tion résidentielle des ménages à revenus moyens ou aisés. Loopmans et al (2010) mettent ainsi en exergue dans leur analyse des villes belges que « les politiques belges d'urbanisation ont toujours été caractérisées par un anti-urbanisme fortement enraciné, mettant la priorité sur les développements péri-phériques, la faible densité en opposition aux quartiers centraux denses. Depuis les années 1960, cette voie a été contestée à de nombreuses reprises.…”