ABSTRACT
The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) in 2007 published the report ‘Identification with the Netherlands’. 1 At the public presentation of the report, (then) princess Máxima, as a non-native Dutch woman, reflected on the issue of identity and stated: ‘But, “the” Dutch identity? No, I haven’t found it’; and: ‘“The Dutchman” doesn’t exist’. 2 These statements were fully in line with the report’s conclusions that in today’s globalizing world, it is not very productive to speak about the Dutch identity. The council preferred to speak about ‘processes of identification’ (functional, normative, emotional) as open processes with different meanings and different outcomes for different parts of the Dutch population, based on the reality of the diverse Dutch society. Máxima’s speech triggered strong reactions. Nationalist-leaning individuals and organizations fiercely criticized her for doing away with the Netherlands: Who we are, our common history and what has made us proud to be Dutch. On the other hand, she was wholeheartedly embraced by the cosmopolitans for acknowledging the new reality of the global world and discarding in the dustbin of history old concepts of identity that hold us hostage in tradition. And there were also lukewarm ‘Yes…, but…’ reactions from those who did not want to touch on this sensitive subject to either spare the princess or those who felt offended. The WRR report, the speech by princess Máxima and the ensuing debate show the problem of the national identity discourse: Is it about process, about content, or about both – and if so, in what relationship?
