 Hi everyone, we're going to get started now. Thank you so much for joining the first lectures in planning lecture this week. Our speaker for today is Cheryl and since an assistant professor at Colfinn University. My name is McCormill Jimmel and a PhD student here at Columbia and the urban planning program, and I'm going to be moderating today's session. A few technical things because today we have a hybrid version. And then we'll go right into this introducing the speaker and having the talk happen. So during the talk for those who are on zoom, please mute your microphones. We're recording so you should have gotten that notification already. If you want to do anyone who doesn't want to have their face video and make sure your video is off on the zoom end of side of thing. The chat box is going to be used for only just like discussion about the session if you've got a technical issue. Please send that message over to Tisha Mao who's one of my cohort mates. Lastly, we encourage you to typing questions throughout the lecture in the chat box and we'll get to those during Q&A the Q&A is going to start around two to 10. And then we'll have plenty of time for questions. I'm going to be coordinating Q&A with an eye to diversity and inclusion so make sure that if you have already had a chance to ask a question you give the space for others to ask questions as well. With that, I'm delighted to introduce today's speaker Professor Sheridan Simpson. Sheridan's research and teaching are informed by an interest in the ways in which states and communities interact in place just questions, such as how are government policies and programs implemented or translated into everyday experiences. How do community members use, narrate and shape their environment and in turn how do those actions and stories influence new government policies and programs. She focuses this general interest through questions around citizenship and immigration and environmental justice and urban health. These interests also reflect Simpson's interdisciplinary training centered around social planning and community development with stops and political science biology and geography. So with that, all of Professor Simpson's work is strongly informed by both feminist and critical perspectives and so praxis bring together ideas and action and a focus on using methods and technology to promote increased social justice are also important links between all of her research. So today, Professor Simpson's lecture called performing an audience in citizenship will examine the idea of citizenship it's conceptualization it's practices and asking how exclusion from this category impacts claims making within communities and how planners also react and engage with these negotiations of citizenship. So with that, I will pass things over to you. Thanks so much for that generous introduction. It's always so funny to like, you're like, wait, is that what I do that. Yeah, that okay, I think that's what I do. So thank you so much and thanks for the invitation as well. I'm so happy to join you guys and be able to join virtually and kick off what looks like it's going to be a really great another really great speaker series I'm always kind of, I always like the Columbia grad students put together like a great show so I'm glad to be a part of it. So yeah, I am going to be talking today about this idea of performing an audience in citizenship. I was asked to kind of speak about my work that focuses around questions of immigration and citizenship that's kind of one part of the bulk of the work that I do. And so that's what I'm going to be focusing on today, and I look at this question of immigration and citizenship from a couple of different ways. I don't really look at migration per se my questions aren't so much sort of what induces people to move, or how people move. My questions are really about kind of what happens when people get to the new place. My questions of citizenship formation become an important part of the work, really trying to think about how people become citizens and I'll talk a little bit more about what I mean by that slightly fraud term in a second. So some of the work that I've done around this area has been very, very quantitative and it's looked really very specifically around policy questions, and looking at sort of settlement questions from a quantitative perspective. I don't really talk very much about that work today unless folks want me to during the Q&A I'm always happy to talk about that as well. But I just wanted to toss up a couple of references of work that I've done, especially some collaborative work that I've done with a colleague and viscer who's at UC Davis looking at municipal immigration policy so really trying to think about what cities are doing around immigration incorporation citizenship formation, and then also some work that I've done just looking at settlement questions are trying to understand kind of like how and why people end up in the neighborhoods that they end up in, and looking at that sort of in a quantitative way. What I'm going to talk about today is work that is sort of more qualitative interpretive, and that looks at this question again of citizenship formation, but thinking about citizenship, not just in terms of formal citizenship, not just in terms of thinking about you know whether or not someone's a passport whether or not somebody has status, but really thinking about citizenship more broadly, as this kind of status of equal membership in a self governing polity, and thinking about all the independent rights and responsibilities that come along with that membership. So that's the kind of definition of citizenship that we're playing with today. The other perspective on citizenship comes out of this idea of sort of feminist practices in geography and in planning, and thinking about critical practices and practices as well. And so I'm also drawing on this idea of ordinary citizenship. And Stahaley or Ken Lightner and Naga really helps to define this idea of ordinary citizenship by pulling out these two distinct meanings of ordinary. So on the one hand, thinking about ordinary as being average or every day. So trying to understand just what people do in place how they do it who they do it with, but also thinking about kind of the origin of the word ordinary. And that that that aspect of order, more specifically. So the idea also of trying to think about what are the kind of social and legal orders that shape and conditions what people can do in those average or everyday ways. So that's the, these are some of the ideas around citizenship that I'm trying to think about really looking at that idea of membership, and then really trying to play with this relationship between what people can do in their everyday lives, and the kinds of social and legal orders that shape and conditions what we can actually do. And when we think about the social and legal orders planning definitely becomes a really important part of that, especially when we're thinking about the urban scale or the neighborhood scale which is where a lot of my work kind of has started and, and still sits. I think today performing and audiences citizenship. And what I mean by that right is trying to think sort of methodologically around the lenses through which we can look for this relationship was kind of dialectic between these different definitions of ordinary. When we think about performances right drawing on performance studies, but also drawing on research, research, research methodologies that focus on more than or non representational methodologies. We're thinking about the work that's done through actions relationships emotions, and through the body itself. So really trying to pay attention to questions of affect trying to pay attention to questions of emotion, trying to pay attention to materiality that people are actually doing who they're actually doing it with, rather than just looking at the representations of place. So again, going back to that materiality questions about that questions of emotion. And so thinking about this idea of citizenship and citizenship formation through that lens of performance. When we think about this idea of performing citizenship what I'm talking about there are performances or works through action relationships motion the body, where the work is to constitute full membership. So thinking what people do how they do it with the material spaces are of people trying to gain, or trying to constitute that full membership in those self bought in the self governing policies, I know all of these like lovely words. Okay. The other part of the talk is this idea of audiences, and I think that audiences becomes really important in part because a lot of the work that I've done around immigration has really been relational right it's been about that dialectic between those different kinds of ordinaries, the actions that people take, and the, the social and legal orders that shape and condition those actions, but also specifically thinking about immigration, a lot of immigration research really focuses on sort of the acts the cultures, the practices of immigrant residents. A lot of immigrant, a lot of immigration research for that reason also often focuses on one specific group. So you're looking at Turkish immigrants in Berlin. You know you're looking at Mexican immigrants in Georgia right you're looking at these specific groups. There's a couple of different things. One of the things that it does is it kind of reifies or solidifies the idea, but the policies that people are coming into our homogenous holes. So it reifies this idea that you know we're talking about the United States for example that the American policy is one homogenous whole. And that's obviously not true right there's a huge amount of diversity a huge amount of conflict a huge amount of debate. In the American context about who should be a full member about what membership should look like about what rights and responsibilities right should be afforded to full members. So when we focus our immigration studies purely on immigrant residents trying to ask and look at what they do. What we do is again we ignore that other side of the ordinary we ignore the the sort of social and legal orders the condition what people are actually able to do and what people choose to do. It also does the thing of flattening the politics of the work that we do as well so particularly thinking about planning right planning is highly political it's highly contested we're dealing with you know scarce resources we're dealing with power we're dealing with material conditions right it's a highly political field. But if we think about planning for immigration or planning with immigrant residents as something that's about immigrants. Again it lets planning off the hook it lets us not think about or engage with or query our own practices our own cultures within that that institution. So if I'm thinking about citizenship as a performance, the other end of that performance is this idea of audiences. So in immigration studies, folks talk about the idea of audience in terms of the ideas around recognition and legibility. So, you know, is there an audience present that can recognize the performance, right, and we're thinking about citizenship performances in particular, is there an audience that can recognize the performances for example of immigrant residents as citizenship performances. So the performance is legible to the audience is the audience making making itself available to take in those those performances. And so again like looking at that idea of audiences right it sort of flips the site of study it flips the focus of the study. And it also to help us kind of think about and understand right this whole the whole process of the performance of citizenship, including this idea that one of the things that the state in particular does to kind of govern citizenship. Again it's not just about these sort of formal rights or formal responsibilities, but it's also in this idea of how practices tropes of belonging and identity concerns are produced and constituted so how those kinds of what kinds of practices are are recognized as or recognized as or become legible as citizenship practices, what kinds of tropes of belonging what kinds of identity concerns are considered legitimate in conversations around citizenship. So again this idea of audiences right is a it's a relational way of thinking about performances of citizenship that shine a light on and highlight not just immigrant residents but also thinking about the work of non immigrant residents organizations including the state and including planning and planners. So that's that relationship that we're trying to build. This isn't this wasn't sort of like a really linear way of thinking about this like it wasn't like I sort of sat down and started my research by being like cool. I'm going to look at performances of citizenship and audience saying and it's all going to be relational that's going to how it's going to happen. I think sometimes when we present our final products that's often the way it gets presented like it very all seems very linear. You knew what you were doing from the start you just did it. That's not the way that research, you know, actually happens for the most part or that's not what I found at least. And so for me it's been a really iterative process to get here. And part of that iterative process has been work that I've been doing now for quite some time in two neighborhoods in particular into cities in particular. So I just kind of talk about those places for a little bit and kind of talk about sort of how and where I started to think about these ideas of performing and audiences. And some of the ways that listening to these places helped me and allowed me to kind of think, think about planning and to think about citizenship in these ways. So this is our two neighborhoods, no more, which is in Copenhagen so the capital of Denmark, right in the hosted region so the central, the central or capital region of the of the country. And then the other one is a neighborhood called spends and then sort of part of the neighbor, the sort of cluster of neighborhood neighboring West End neighborhoods, which is in a city called Winnipeg which is sort of right smack dab in the middle of Canada, governed by treaty one and in the heart of the Métis nation. And so I looked at I looked at these neighborhoods, in part because they are there, it's a weird, it's a weird sort of comparative, but I was looking at them for a couple of different reasons. They are neighborhoods that are in very distinct national context, right, the Canadian context versus the Danish context. But there are also neighborhoods that have sort of a lot of like weirdly shared conditions. And so part of that is that they're both in cities where international immigration had increased quite significantly, sort of from the kind of early 2000s and then moving forward. The character of international immigration was also shifting quite a bit in both of these neighborhoods. Manitoba and Winnipeg had a lot of Eastern European immigration, classically, and there's still quite a bit of Eastern European immigration that's happening, but there's also been quite a bit of an expansion. So there's a lot more folks that are immigrating from West African countries and East African countries. There's a lot more folks that are immigrating from Southeast Asia, the Philippines in particular there's there's a long standing Filipino community in Winnipeg but there's also been quite a bit of an increase in other South Asian communities also migrating there, and also an increase in folks migrating from South America. So there's been this kind of shift, right in terms of kind of who's immigrating and sort of in many ways like a visible shift right in who the the immigrant residents are in these places. So Copenhagen similarly, there's always been like a lot of the European immigration in Copenhagen. There's also been like waves of for example like, again like Filipino immigration to Copenhagen as well small waves but still waves, but they've been quite an expansion. So again, there's been quite an expansion of Eastern European migration, also a real large expansion of folks moving from West Asia, or the Middle East, Northern Africa, and then also, sorry, sorry, and also sorry West Africa I might have already said that but just in case I didn't. So also kind of a wave of folks moving from West Africa. So you have this situation that was kind of unique in a lot of ways, distinct from like Toronto or New York or London, right places that have kind of long standing established large immigrant resident populations. We have the situation where both of these cities were really developing their kind of infrastructure around immigration and immigration and they were developing in them in this period of like deep neoliberalization or liberalization in both context. And that was happening in distinct ways in both countries. So that was kind of my starting point was trying to figure out right trying to tease out how much that national context impacted what was happening at the local scale. There's a couple of different ways but again like I said today I really want to focus on that that idea of of the performances of citizenship. So what were the context of these nations and these neighborhoods, how were they kind of impacting performances of citizenship. And again I did necessarily set out with this sort of like very clear framework of performance of performances of citizenship, but it emerged from the research in a lot of ways because people talked about membership rights and responsibility connected to the state and the nation state in sort of surprising ways in ways I wasn't necessarily expecting. And so these are just two examples, one from Copenhagen, one from Winnipeg. They're both mums and they're both mums talking about these questions of or ideas around home ownership and buying a home. And this became a real interesting site of conversation around citizenship which I wouldn't necessarily have expected. People were tying in narratives of home ownership and tying in narratives of of home and access to home. They were tying them really directly into these questions of sort of the state and citizenship and belonging. So in this case, right, we, we have our this interviewee my interlocutor, and she sort of talks she's talking about the idea of like of her and her partner, they found that they were pregnant they needed to buy a house they needed someplace bigger to live or flatter an apartment at least. And she's talking about the process and saying it was demoralizing trying to find a place to buy. People didn't take us seriously they didn't want to sell to immigrants. And then she goes on to talk about the idea that it's just that aspect of not being thought of as here, or not being thought of first. And in that bracket she sort of talks about the idea that like they told all their friends that they were looking for someplace to live. But people would constantly just like not tell them about a place so they would hear that so and so is selling their flat and be like, we told you we were looking for something why didn't you let us know. But as she goes on right it's that constant negotiation of oh you're still here. It doesn't register that like as a foreigner you'd want to be here. And then like on the other flip side of that is people not wanting to share access to things. So it's both things. And then in the Canadian case. In the Canadian case again this is somebody who also had, you know purchased their own home, and she was talking about what that process of purchasing her home and meant right and sort of situating it for herself. And so she talks about the idea of. Okay, so I've done what I was supposed to. I've learned the language I've worked I pay taxes I do care about the country, but what do I have in the country right. So I've applied for citizen, I became citizen. Well, the last thing you need is a home to feel at home, right. So in both of these cases right what we see is we see something that I found in common in a lot of the kinds of ways in which people were describing or narrating these performances of citizenship in unexpected ways. What I found in common in these dense urban spaces was really a sense of people performing in a way that laid a claim to space that really sort of claimed space for themselves. That was a really important aspect of the kinds of performances that people highlighted. And there are lots of different kinds of performances there are stories of people like cleaning up trash in their neighborhoods. Stories, you know, of people, you know, occupying park spaces in particular ways. There are all these different kinds of stories, but one of the things that they really came back to was this idea of really of occupying space, and then idea of being able to hold space being a really important act of performing citizenship and a really important way that people saw themselves. Being able to enter into that full membership, being able to claim their rights being able also though to take responsibility for the spaces that they were in. Another theme that kind of comes up quite a bit and we see this a little bit in this, in this quote is also this idea of, of resources and one really important resource being information. So that idea that one of the ways in which people were sort of claiming membership was that idea of amassing information, but also disseminating it to other immigrant residents. So being that kind of hub point, where you could share information with other immigrant residents to make sure that people could gain access to material needs and material resources became another kind of way that people talked about and formed citizenship in both of these cases. So that's just like a little like, you know, flavor of it. But what I want to talk about instead is kind of the outcomes of these performances. So what I found was that actually people were doing quite similar things in both of these places, and immigrant residents from a variety of different backgrounds were also doing relatively similar things. So for example, you know in these two quotes right this is actually somebody who's immigrated from the US. This is somebody who had, who had actually immigrated from Eastern Africa. And so, in both of these cases we have people coming from very very different places but actually, you know, acting as immigrant residents and claiming citizenship in very similar ways right in terms of this idea of claiming space. What was interesting was actually that in both of the two cases, the outcome of these performances I found were what was were to state, and those outcomes were really again determined by that process of or it wasn't so much what immigrant residents were doing. It was the ways in which the state and other non immigrant residents were able to take in or hear or read those performances. And so what I found was that there were sort of like two different outcomes and I call one this idea of liminal citizenship, and I call this other one this idea of interstitial, interstitial citizenship. And what I mean by liminal is this idea of being in a threshold. So I found this outcome more commonly in the Canadian context. And so what I mean by that is that people were seeing a way through to citizenship in the Canadian context. It was sort of like if I do these things if I act in this way if I make these connections if I share these resources by claims based in this way people saw a way through. So they saw the performances of citizenship as being kind of creating a threshold to move from the status of being an immigrant into the status of being Canadian being Canadian citizenship. So the thing that was kind of distinct as well about the performances is that people often kind of talked about their performances as having kind of an implied outside audience. So people were doing things to kind of show and prove right their membership to show and prove to those non immigrant institutions that they did belong that they were claiming space in a proper way that they were making citizenship or they were making a contribution to place, because there was this understanding or belief that if that happened, there was sort of a way through into citizenship. In the Danish case what I actually found was something a little bit different. This idea of being interstitial. So interstitial is like all those sort of spaces in between muscle muscles. So it's these spaces where there's kind of no out there's no kind of way in the space, the void is the space itself. And that's what I found. That's how I found a lot of people in the Danish case were really kind of analyzing their situation and their condition. They didn't necessarily see what they were doing as something that would move them through into being Danish or into Danish citizenship. Instead, the audience thing was really kind of turned in work. So people were still claiming space they were sharing resources they were making material resources available or sharing information, making material resources available to other folks, but it wasn't there. They weren't narrating those actions in terms of kind of like making a way in. They were narrowing those actions very much in terms of the idea of like creating their own policies within their neighborhoods within their communities. This is something that's been identified in a lot of ways in Danish policy, Danish immigration policy, Danish settlement policy, but in Danish policy, the way that it's described and analyzed is the idea that people are rejecting Danish citizenship and Danish society. And I'll talk about this in a second there's a whole bunch of kind of policy responses that are prefaced on this idea that people are somehow rejecting Danishness or Danish society or wanting to be a part of that. But what I found instead was this this sort of outcome of interstitial citizenship right this idea that people were thinking about and analyzing and understanding the performances as you know turned inwards as performances for themselves as building a citizenship that was kind of, you know, in between Danish society was really more so prefaced on people's perception of a rejection from Danish society. So it wasn't that people were like, we don't want to be involved, it was that people were constantly feeling that their performances were not being audience well, they were not being understood as performances of citizenship, rather they were being understood as disruptions or as noise comments. I want to sit with this idea of interstitial citizenship for a minute, because I think that I mean in part because I think planners spend a lot of time talking about Denmark is like this example, but maybe we can think about Denmark for a second actually is like a cautionary tale instead. So, I'll start here this is an image that I've used a lot in my research and presentations at some point I was like I need to stop showing this image, but to be honest about it keeps on drawing me back in and I and it keeps on asking me to think with it so I'm going to think with it for a little bit longer. So one of the things I did in early work in these neighborhoods was that I did a lot of interviews with immigrant residents and that work has continued in lots of different formats over the years. And some early interviews right when I would do these narrative interviews with folks and I was asking them about their neighborhoods and about their homes. And this is where those narratives around citizenship really popped up. But one of the things I did as part of those interviews was I asked, I would ask people to draw maps of the places where they lived or their city. When I asked them to draw those maps of the city I asked them specifically to just draw the places that had meaning to them the places that they went they cared about that they went to. And so this is one of the maps that was drawn. And it was drawn by a resident who lives in an area that has been labeled by the data, the Danish government ghetto on rather. So a ghetto place. It has like an official term in Danish policy which just says a lot about translation, which is not my area but but I would love to know it's always interesting to think about. But ghettos have been defined in Denmark in a very particular way it's it's literally there are things in Danish policy, and they are defined as places where a certain percentage of the population is either from a non western country or is the descendant of a non western or somebody from a non western country, where a certain number of people are out of work or out of school, and where a certain number of people have been convicted of certain kinds of crimes. So that's the definition of a ghetto. So again right it's this idea of defining the sort of spaces of disruption by the people themselves, and just being a person from a quote unquote non western country is enough of a disruption. Right, that's the kind of like, that's the kind of sort of feeling pushed out right the need to build these interstitial spaces that we see in this in the Danish context. So, I show this one because it's just like, it's, it's just lovely, like it's really lovely depiction right, and this was somebody whose English wasn't very strong my Danish isn't very strong my Arabic is non existent. So the interview had been like a bit choppy, but once he had this kind of this object to actually talked about. There's so many like interesting things that came out. And so, you know on the one hand right this is a ghetto, that's the ghetto place. It's beautiful, right, because this is home is this home and it's a beautiful place for him. So he drew all of these sort of like lovely things like he, you know really highlighted the importance of sports. That was one thing bicycles kind of came in which is like an important running theme as as planners know about Copenhagen right. So bikes were present in his Copenhagen as well. But the other thing that he drew that he was really adamant about drawing and that he explained was this these all these little satellite dishes. People have told me multiple times isn't how satellite dishes work, but I thought the point the point is the narrative and the analysis and the understanding. And the satellite dishes when he described it was that they were sort of turned in lots of different directions. And depending on what direction they returned sort of told you, like, whose country they were beaming information in front right so he was like my Palestinian friends, there's face this way, you know my Somali friends there's face this way my Lebanese friends there's face this way. But again right it was this really interesting idea right of a performance of citizenship that they had in common, which was actually about being connected to other places as well. That was actually a way in which they were building place together they were producing place together was also staying connected to those other places, and bringing those narratives back in to be able to share an exchange with each other. And that's how he described the satellite dishes, really is these this sort of connective thread. Now I keep on thinking with this image in part because the Danish government keeps on thinking with this image as well. And so this is a report from 2010. The title is the ghetto to society, like a conflict against or like a fight against parallel society in Denmark. And the satellite dish shows up like this key image right in in this document, it became it's become the symbol right for the Danish government of this like symbol of people, you know again rejecting Danish society of creating this parallel societies of not wanting to become or to be Danish right this idea that people are connecting back home became this like weird running thread as part of the imagery of these of these, these ghetto places these this parallel society. And in 2018 right there's another report that's put out. It's a Denmark Denmark without or sorry a Denmark without the parallel society, no ghettos by 2030. So that's like kind of the more current policy right but we still have this kind of running parallel societies, we still have this parallel theme of like needing to get rid of these ghetto places where these people from non Western countries are clustered together. And this is, and, and this is the image that's there right this image of Denmark without a parallel society. And this is just like an aerial antenna like beams in like only Danish television. Again right like it's such a bizarre but like intentional thing that the Danish government right is is highlighting in these sort of sparse, you know these relatively sparse images that like this sort of one key image right is this shift from the satellites to to these aerial antennas right that are going to keep people that are going to make people Danish. Again right it's just inability right as an audience right the inability of the Danish government as an audience to actually understand and to read and perceive the performances that are being made by these immigrant residents right that's becomes kind of the focus. And again I think it's something that planning can learn from because I think within planning. We also often have this inability to understand or read or audience particular kinds of performances that don't fall within a very narrow category of what the performances of citizenship should be. So thinking about like that disrupted that quote unquote disruptive person at the meeting, right that's not considered. It's not considered a performance of citizenship right we relegate it to sort of noise to disruption to being sort of parallel to the ideas that planners want to have, but what happens when we listen to those performances in a different way right what happens when we listen to the performance is a different way and also asked like why right why are these parallel, why do folks within these quote unquote parallel societies, or these interstitial places, why are they acting in these ways that are turned in, rather than turned out. And so these are just two quotes as well that kind of again just sort of speak to the ways in which immigrants are sort of analyzing that question right the way that they're analyzing the audience thing of Denmark. And so one this came from one young man who also lives in a ghetto or mother ghetto place. And he talks about the idea of like, this is actually somebody who was born in Denmark as well and he talks about the idea like that I'm not Danish. There will never be so white, blue eyes, etc. But this place, speaking again about this, this ghetto on Lada this, you know which is considered this parallel society right this like, you know crumbling place it needs to be fixed when he talks about it when he says, this place where we can keep some of our culture and our traditions. They say we have to integrate, but I'm Danish Pakistani, and I think like anyone with an immigrant background. And so he I interviewed a group of group of youth. They were 18 for 18 19 year olds, but I could interview a group of them and the same kind of team up over and over again this idea that again they were creating their own space right. That Danish Pakistani identity, a Danish Lebanese a Danish Sudanese identity but like that they were creating their own, their own sort of meaning their own polity that they wanted to be a member of. And again right it was about this kind of rejection from that that polity that they couldn't, they couldn't find a threshold into right if the threshold into Danishness is being blonde and blue eyes there's there's no sort of threshold for them. They were producing their own spaces and they were producing their own policies and these really interesting ways. And then one other quote around this that I think again is really relevant and we're trying to think about this relationship between citizenship and planning is came from a resident who had moved from Eastern Europe for education. And he was describing Denmark, sort of towards the end of the interview and he said, oh Denmark, it's, oh Denmark is unbelievable country. I mean it's so diverse. And as I said, there is an abundance of crafty people nasty people awful people. On the other hand, there's really a great number of unbelievable people in terms of being so nice so good, so so eager to help the others, or so so help eager to help you the others, believing and sharing and everything. So there's two Denmark, one nasty and one beautiful. And so again, I think, you know, as planners, if we want to learn from Denmark right we'd love Denmark as an example but Denmark again is this kind of cautionary tale. Because I see within planning practice again these kind of same tendencies right that there is on the one hand this that there is sort of a nasty parts to planning right and that is the exclusionary part. That is a part that you know maintains these boundaries and maintains these expectations right that people can't move through. But there's also this potential at least for the idea of like a beautiful planning right a planning that is more open and more able to audience some of these performances. And so that's kind of where my research has moved right really kind of trying to think with and play with these ideas that I learned from my interlocutors. In these two neighborhoods to try and think about you know what would that beautiful planning look like what would be some of the possibilities for that beautiful planning. But also right to kind of learn from what I learned from this process of trying to listen differently, and to try and think about like how that could be used or what I could learn from that to think about other places. I'll quickly talk about one project that sort of bringing some of that thinking forward. And that's a project that I've been looking that I've been working on and I'm starting to write up about now that's looking at this idea of citizenship formation, but looking at it in a real context and specifically I'm looking at it in this little spot here, which is Parkland Manitoba. So Winnipeg is there. See we're in right in the middle of Canada park lands there it's sort of like three to five hours outside of Winnipeg depending on where you are. Again it's like kind of right smack in the middle of the country in the continent. It's mostly in Treaty two, but then a little bit in Treaty four as well up in the north. And part of the question that I'm working with here is this idea of really taking the politics of rural life seriously. So in this project I'm not looking just at immigrant residents but I'm looking at immigrant residents and then also looking at young adults. So other folks that are kind of like moving into citizenship and looking at both indigenous and non-indigenous young adults. So looking at how these three groups within the same place are or aren't able to navigate that process of citizenship formation. And listening to rural places I think again is really interesting and important in part because so much of planning is focused on like big urban centers. And even Winnipeg, even Winnipeg, even Copenhagen compared to some place like Parkland is quite dense and quite urban. And so like I said a lot of the sort of practices of citizenship that people were undertaking were really focused on these like claims to scare space. They're really focused on this idea of trying to disseminate information for scarce resources. But in Parkland I've been finding something a little bit different. What I'm finding is that a lot of the performances of citizenship are really focused on ideas around working with the land, movement on the land, and then also a really strong focus on collective memory making. This idea that you're sort of claiming place not necessarily through like having to like buy a house having to like, you know, be in a park having to stay claim in that way. But through this process of collective memory making that's been a really important aspect of how I'm finding folks performing citizenship in rural context. And so, you know, part of that, you know, thinking about things like working on the land right people, you know, there's still a lot of agriculture but there's also a lot of kind of like cultural agriculture is almost what I would say so people for example talk about the idea that they farm because they want to make sure that their kids have a strong work ethic right that's a conversation that folks have a lot. Working on the land can also be like recreational work on the land so that idea that like citizenship is claimed by being somebody who, you know, goes out to the parks who boats who hikes whose fishes right all those things actually become these ways that people talk about right their membership in place, and they talk about the ways in which they are kind of trying to leave themselves into place. So it's also really important these are super vast areas so you know it's everything from you know people people are sort of like yeah you know who everyone is by their vehicles right because everybody has to kind of drive everywhere, or tends to drive everywhere. But movement on the land is also important in terms of ideas around immigration so one of the things that's really interesting and thinking about collective memory making as well is as you start as I've been one of the things I've been looking at has been the history that have kind of been produced about the area over time. So starting in the 1800s but then again sort of a burst in 1970 around the centenary of Manitoba as well but as you look at these something that's really interesting is the way that immigration actually gets used over and over again as a sign of membership. So people's claim to membership is about coming from someplace else. So it's the Icelandic family it's the Ukrainian family it's the British family it's the German family. And so now is new immigrant residents are making their way to Parkland again from South Asia from Africa, right as people are making their way towards Parkland actually being welcomed immigrant immigrant residents has actually become part of this again trope and the origins of citizenship right but that's the narrative that's being constructed in this rural place that is actually really important to to be welcoming to new immigrant residents because people have maintained over two and three and four generations. These, this idea of being people who come from someplace else. It also doesn't important. It also doesn't work in this sort of context of the prairies and the context of Canada as a settler colonial country is that it also though, allides indigenous claims of membership. So it doesn't funny, there's sort of like a funny two way street here right where like being from someplace else being able to move in and around the space. Right that freedom of movement is actually a sign of membership. But what it does is it means that the people who've always been here right fall out as members in dominant narratives. I mean, you know, when I talk about this idea of citizenship and performances of citizenship, it's not always. These are not always political performances performances of citizenship might be counter to the state, right, or they might be otherwise from state narratives around citizenship, as we see in processes of interstitial citizenship, but they might also be performances of citizenship that actually, you know, stabilize and enhance these often uneven ways in which memberships rights and equality are doled out by the state. So again, trying to understand this in this rural context has been really fruitful in a lot of different ways and part of that has just been methodological where I've had to listen in a really different way, as compared to the work that I've done in urban places. So I can't just like show up and like assume that stuff's going to be happening or that it's going to be really visible to me right I've had to listen in really distinct ways to these to these rural places. So that is this idea of listening to silence as signal as well. So in that same way that in urban context, often, right, we, we talk about a lot of what's going on is kind of being noise in the rural context I've had to kind of try and listen more carefully to the silence and try and really understand materially what that is and I've written about that here and I'd be happy to chat about that more. So that's a question and answer of people are interested. The other thing right is this idea of taking the politics of rural life seriously also means, again, not trying to homogenize rural life, but really trying to focus on trying to find the simultaneous the simultaneity of stories so far. And that's the way that Doreen Massey, the really phenomenal geographer Doreen Massey talked about the idea of what politics were this idea that politics were about openness, and the politics of place specifically places were political, specifically because there was this simultaneity of stories so far there are these coming together people different people stories and pressure and perspectives. And so again, right, that's been part of taking the politics of a reality seriously has been trying to kind of, you know, find those spots to find that simultaneous simultaneity of stories so far. And one of the ways that I've done that has been through a focus on ordinary photography. And so folks like Pete, Celeste Petrie Spade talk about this idea of ordinary photography is being important, because again it's that idea of, you know, thinking about ordinary in both of those ways but that idea that, you know people take images of those everyday photos of things that are important to them. But also that idea that as those images are taken, right, they become part of those institutions that sort of shape and condition what's possible. So one of the things I've been looking at like I said I've been looking at community histories, you know from the 70s and earlier, but then I've also been looking at Instagram images and thinking about those as sort of contemporary stories. So not thinking about like social media as being like representative or thinking about it as big data or quantitative, but really trying to think about like the qualitative and the material aspect of some of these images, and trying to think about the ways in which those provide that opportunity to think about those simultaneous, a simultaneous stories so far. And so one example has just been the ways in which different folks have presented images of sort of celebration and festival in the area. And so for example, there's a festival in one of the larger cities or larger city, the city in the area called the Ukrainian cultural festival that happens. And the posts from those are usually from folks who are like, who are often sort of like, you know, Ukrainian identified sort of culturally or family wise. And, you know, you see a mix of people in like traditional, you know, traditional cultural costumes and eating food and dancing and regular clothes, and it's very celebratory. On the other hand, when non indigenous folks represent pow wow, and I'm not talking about like ceremony or like celebrate, you know, celebrate sacred pow wow, but like celebratory community pow wow. There's this, there's this very particular way in which they're represented, which tends to historicize them. So it's always folks in like full regalia. It's often there's like a lot of like silhouettes a lot of like profiles, all of the like state, all of the, like captions are like very like I was, you know, they're very long, they're always very long. They're always sort of about like the magic and mysticalness of pow wow. Indigenous folks when they talk about pow it's much more like the Ukrainian festival right there's folks in full regalia there's folks in half regalia folks in t shirts there's beers there's kids right it's a celebration. So I just wanted to like give those two quick stops to some of the different ways that I'm having to think about citizenship and having to look for and listen for these performances in this rural context. And I want to do that because I think that again brings us back to this question of like brings me back to this sort of final question that I want to, you know, make sure that I actually address which is this idea. Okay, so what does this have to do with planning right we're talking about I'm talking about citizenship and I'm talking about performance and audience thing. So what does this have to do with planning. So I think, you know, hopefully it connects to planning a couple of different ways that tried to highlight, you know, throughout the chat. You know, this idea of citizenship participation is something now that is kind of taken as a given within planning, right. And sometimes we forget the history of that but for the most part it's taken as a given. And I think a couple of things that this idea of looking at citizenship and the performance and audience of citizenship helps us to do is it helps us rethink where we look for citizenship. So citizenship is not only happening in the meetings that we plan. It's not only happening in city hall. It's not only happening in the board rooms that we often go to like of the developers where we, you know, where we, you know, do our negotiations. So instead of really thinking about citizenship and this idea of citizenship for nation as an ongoing process, and also very much as a multi scalar process. So citizenship is happening, you know, in people's bodies right in like feelings of belonging that people might have, but also in feelings of rejection that people might have. They're happening in relationship and the ways in which people are relating to each other, the ways in which they're building their own policies when there's not a way into those policies as an example. But they also, again, they happen through again those process of audiences that is a state process that can be an institutional process. So we need to look for citizenship at multiple scales and we need to be able to think nimbly about the relationship across multiple scales, as we're thinking about, you know, urban policy as we're thinking about planning more broadly. That also helps to think about this idea of audience thing well. So for planners right the idea that we want to be, we want to be able to audience well, we want to be able to engage with performances that are challenging, right, challenging to our norms around what citizen should or shouldn't look like. And that really involves the process of listening differently. So it involves using a full suite of tools and methods and methodologies. And I think one of the things that's always so funny about citizenship participation is if you go back and look at older plans so like I've worked in Providence Rhode Island as well and I remember looking at the, you know, the participation process for the plan that they did in about like 2015 or so. And it was it was like we held a bunch of meetings, but it was really innovative because some of those meetings were in the evening. So back and look at the 1970s, the citizenship, the participation that they did was door knocking. And it was door knocking, especially in neighborhoods where they knew that people weren't going to come to meetings. So we have a huge range of methods and methodologies we can use to listen to people. They can be digital, they can be analog, they can be in community right they can be in service and we need to use that full range. We also need to let that audience thing affect our solutions and our politics, right. So we need to be able to sort of analyze and sort through those, those performances that maintain inequitable norms and that disrupt them. And we need to let those performances change us. So not just sort of, you know, you watch it you go away but that we really let it seep into our practice and into our theories. And I think the other idea, the other thing about this idea of thinking about performance and audience thing is that it also shifts the positionality of planners. And I am, I am torn as who just graduated from University of Illinois Urbana champagne. So this really amazing thing at a panel around abolition and planning where he talked about the idea of planning planners not being the protagonists. And I think that that's what we need to start thinking about right is that planners are not the protagonist in urban development. We are the audience, right, we need to be an active audience, we need to be an audience that does something with what we hear but we are not the protagonists and I really love that idea. So the last thing is that in the last thing I'm trying to do with all of this thinking is again, trying to think about how, you know, how I actually apply this like how do we actually do this what do we do with all this information. And so I'll just leave on this slide which is just a project that I've just started with a bunch of amazing collaborators, which is this idea of thinking about planning for abolition. And so again, thinking about citizenship in a slightly different way and I can talk about this more during the question and answer period of folks want the part of it, you know, came out of a special issue and an editorial that I put together with Justin Steele and Aditi Mehta, and also comes out of just years of work that I've done around reentry specifically. And so it's this idea of thinking about our relationship as planners as often state institutions with that other state institution that is so important in shaping and conditioning urban life, which is policing and trying to think about a form of planning where we can be removing ourselves from that process of policing and imagining another more sort of beautiful way of planning that doesn't involve that particular brand is nastiness. So that's just starting and hopefully I can come and chat with you about that project in the years to come. That's all I've got. Thanks so much. So what we're going to do is we're going to open it up to Q&A so folks on zoom if you've got questions drop those in the chat and then for folks here feel free to raise your hand and I can go ahead and call on you. Who wants to kick us off? Actually, I'm going to go to harder college, but my question was, when you're engaging with an issue like this sort of going on in the network about parallel societies, when you decide to accept the framing of like parallel societies and what that means and what it's causes are and when do you in your research side that that crazy is not like, like, how do you decide to engage with that sort of. Yeah. I might. course correct me if I'm not quite answering your question. But so in some way that's that's for me is. You know, in some of this is weird right because part of the like academic research thing is like a lot of it is weird wordsmithing right so it's like is it parallel or is interstitial is it anyway. But that to me that is, it was important to actually think about it as not parallel but interstitial because I think parallel. And again, there's also like the added layer of translations but part of what that idea of like a parallel society, right in terms of the Danish state discourse. Right, it was really this idea of like that of a choice, right that like there is this Danish society it's running along here, and then immigrant residents from non Western places were making us making a concerted choice to say like oh we don't want to have anything to do with this we want to be around on our own. And, and so I think that that image is, I think that that does not describe what people are experiencing and it does not describe how people are acting, because people are acting in deeply engaged ways. It's not like people are in Denmark and they are not engaged in Denmark they are deeply engaged in Denmark for the differences they are deeply engaged in their neighborhoods and in their communities, where there is a space for them to engage right. And that's why I think about this idea of interstitial right as being these spaces that are, you know that are closed off by something else. Right, it's not, it's not a function of people making a choice to not be involved or engaged but it's a function of people being closed off and creating something new in that space. So, so I think that a question of when do you engage and when do you not I think we need to, I think we need to always interrogate right the stories that we're telling and I think that we need to think about what evidence we're using we're using using using that answers your question, maybe not. Okay. Any else of any questions. I've got one that was kind of running through my head as you were talking and it's more of a question about how you think about the way that you yourself as a researcher are an audience as well and how that might impact the way that your interlocutors are performing as they are talking with you. So maybe you can speak to that a little bit. Yeah, no that's a great question and especially like in these sort of in all these different contexts. So again, like part of that is, so part of that becomes, you know, for me, right this idea of sort of a multimodal research design becomes really important. And you know, so on the one hand I might be sitting down with somebody and I'd be doing an interview with them, but I'm also hopefully like in that's, well, okay, with the urban research projects right I was also in those spaces right in in a lot of different ways I was making multiple visits. I was volunteering in the youth program that happened in the basement you know I was, you know I was going to meetings and sitting quietly in the back. So, so it wasn't just sort of like oh someone told me that right but it was like oh someone told me that and then somebody else who was really different from that person told me that and then I saw that other thing. Oh, and then I, you know saw that image in that government document that also. So for me it's that you know I mean it's that it's a triangulation but you know I really think about it as being more than that. And having said that right. There's also definitely a question of positionality that I think is really, really important so I come to this work as somebody who you know I was, I was, I was, I was going to say I was born in the country I was born in but I was born in the country that I spent, you know, most of my childhood in right so I wasn't born an immigrant but I have lived in the states as an immigrant resident there and kind of back and forth and I come from an immigrant community so my parents weren't born in the country that I was born in. So you know I definitely come to this right with a particular perspective right and a particular idea about you know what immigration is right from having been raised in an immigrant community having been an immigrant having seen that like in different contexts, and even just like having like cousins in Canada in the states right and seeing the ways in which our life courses were quite distinct right because of those national context. So you've already sort of set up my analysis in a particular way and sort of led me towards this more relational approach to thinking about this work. And then, you know, in the field as we're supposed to say, it's always a weird, it's always a weird term but you know in the field, yeah definitely your positionality is going to shift how it how things work. I think for me one of the funny ones is like I have a name that does not, unless you are like, unless you are like a West Indian on team my name does not read as like an immigrant name, right, especially in the US or in Canada. So I would, I would, and I, I would often show up at people's doors and they would be like, Oh, you are not who I was expecting. And people would and people would they would interact with me in a very different way right like I would get invited to think like at first they were like oh we'll talk to this weird student from the States but then I would get invited to things that I wouldn't have gotten invited to otherwise definitely. And so I think that that's really important, especially for those of us who are working inside of our communities, I think when we work outside of our communities there's, there's a lot of sort of chatter about the ethics of that work. But when you're working inside your community there's a lot of important ethics work that has to happen as well. I was definitely told stuff that people wouldn't necessarily have told other researchers. And so it's always that idea of like balancing right what is being told to you because of who you are and because of a relationship that's being built and what's being told to you as a researcher and so there's definitely things that I didn't necessarily put in or that I didn't attribute in certain because because they were being told to me in a slightly different role. So I once said this thing once in a, in a workshop that I went to like in my like first or second years of PhD students I always remember which was the idea that you never want to put words in your interviewer's mouth, but that it's okay to let them put words in your mouth. And so there might be something that somebody has said that is that that if you attribute it to them in any way would sort of be a bit controversial but that you can just sort of say, as, as a researcher to kind of protect that that relationship. I don't know if that answers your question but No it does great it's great thank you. Yeah. Oh yeah. Well thanks so much Professor Simpson that was a fantastic presentation and I love the research design. At first I thought the cases were so different but then as as he kept talking I realized how similar they are and I think there's a lot to a lot to learn from that. I wanted to ask whether there's either been an historical element to your research or whether you might be interested in going in that direction. Because you know, I've been thinking about the kind of the hardening boundary lines of citizenship over time for example in the United States right with the border the border patrol the creation of that, or Native American citizenship and, and I guess you've you discussed like the importance of the kind of late liberal neoliberal moment in Denmark and Canada. I'm curious if like, if we were to look at these same questions in the same place and like the 19th century and the 20th century, would we see some changes I don't know if you thought about those kind of questions but yeah. Yeah, that's a really good question. The answer is yes, and yes, and then yes again. So I think, so it's funny my my advisor, my master's advisor is an amazing scholar and practitioner named Miriam Chion who's from Peru. And she had this funny thing that her advisor had said to her, like the genealogy of it but had said to her where he was like yeah the thing about all my American students is they want to start yesterday, they want to start every project like yesterday. But the problem with my Latin American students is they want to start everything in like 1642. And by the time they get today they've like run out of funding and they've run out of time. So she was telling me in the context of being like she's like I don't know, she's like you're acting like a Latin American student so, but I so I think like, you know, even though my work is often quite contemporary, I think one of the things that I always find myself doing is that like looking backwards right so it's, you know, even when I was, you know, working on the, you know, when I was working on this project in theory that, you know, when I started this project that the sort of comparative. Right, it was just supposed to be about yes what was going on today and like neoliberalization, but I like found myself in like archives like reading about like, you know, Danish educational reform in the 1800s like just kind of couldn't help myself. You know, I think that multi scalar aspect has to also be temporal. You know, because I think you're exactly right not only do these things shift but again when we think about that idea of like shaping and conditioning right the historic conditions obviously you know shaping condition what's possible in the present. So, in terms of the work in Parkland that work is, there's a chunk of that that I didn't talk about today that is much or I didn't talk about very much today that is much more expressly historical, and it is it's expressly that idea of trying to trace these memories like as memory became like a really important aspect right of how people were claiming citizenship, it became it's become a process of trying to trace these stories so like where do these memories where these stories about who is a citizenship come from. And so I've been tracing those backwards. And like I said back towards when people sort of as you know settlers started to write community histories. Right and they started really early like it was in sort of like the you know the early 1800s people were already writing these are like little community history so I've been sort of tracing those backwards, but also trying to interspersed them with. You know, for example, there's this really great history that somebody did of a friendship center which is an indigenous organization that was sort of set up for folks that were moving into towns. So, you know, there's like great one from like the 80s that I've been looking at is like another sort of point so again, yes, trying to sort of trace how that narrative is shifted and changed. But yeah thanks for that great question. Yeah, anyone else have some questions. I do have another one if no one. I'm just wondering if through the course of your research, you had any conversations about how these different immigrants are audience and audiencing the citizenship of the state or of the municipality themselves and how that came up in conversation. Yeah, that's a really great question. I think you know the way that I think I've been framing it here right is, is in part, it's that idea of. Yeah, of trying to like center immigrant residents. So putting them on that stage and that sort of performance role and trying to like de center state actions having said that people have thoughts. And that and to be honest with you again like that idea like that relational aspect, right, again it came out of like listening to people's thoughts right where, where, you know, we're immigrant like immigrant residents have a really strong analysis of the places they're they're in because nothing is taken for granted right when you move someplace new. Nothing you don't take anything for granted you're looking at everything in news folks actually really had a really strong analysis of these places and you know that the that last, that last quote that I sort of went through that quote in right like that was one of the really important quotes that came up was just again like people talked a lot about just the difficulty of entering, even just like casual Danish society like there was a sort of like tragic not it was just like a, I don't know I'm not going to mix with you but somebody told this story of like, of like having you know gone to the park one day and like finally meeting, you know, finally like meeting this like this Danish couple that would talk to them and chat with them they had this whole day and they laughed and they talked, and they even exchanged numbers and they're so excited. And then, like, not getting the call back from their new Danish friends. And so their joke was sort of like yeah they're really really cool, unless until you work with them for a really long time or when they're drunk, then they'll talk to you. But it was sort of this like reoccur like it really was this reoccurring theme right of this sort of like the in public and the insular nature. In the flip side right on in the Canadian case, there was this, this kind of constant sense of a really distinct separation between sort of like a professional relationships and personal relationships. So that idea that like you had access to like a certain amount of like very formal resources, the people would sort of talk to you at work but like it was very different from like bigger neighbor like would never say hello to you. And again right I think we often underestimate right the importance of those sort of more social ties right in terms of gaining resources in terms of gaining access to information. Right that if you have a society where like information is hoarded right or where the social sort of social ties to gain material resources are hoarded right it makes it that much more difficult for people to, to, you know, make those to make the connections that they then need to be able to make themselves citizens. So yeah people have thoughts, people have lots of thoughts. Great things. Yeah. Yeah I'm worrying go ahead. Thank you so much Professor Simpson that was a fascinating presentation. My question is in regards to the issue of temporality that you spoke briefly about. And I was wondering if you found maybe like a relationship between the legal status of citizenship and how your interlocutors were performing citizens, you know, citizenship for membership. And if that had changed, depending on where they were in the process of becoming like legal citizens, because I'm guessing your interlocutors were like in different stages of. Yeah, yeah definitely yeah yeah it's interesting it's a question I get a lot and you know part of the thing that's interesting to me is a. So in some ways I'm trying to be led by what I'm hearing like that's that's sort of genuine like something I'm trying to do. And something that's actually interesting to me is that as I reflected as I like went back and looked through that. People don't talk about formal citizenship nearly as much as I would expect them to and you're exactly right that I was interviewing some people who did have formal citizenship I was interviewing people that like, didn't. There's definitely a there's definitely like sort of a threshold like folks who had only been in a country for like, you know, a year or two. There was a distinction between those folks and then folks who'd been in the country for you know two, three, four, five, 10 years. And I mostly have been trying to talk to folks who have been were sort of in their first 10 years, in all of these projects. When I'm the interviews I've been doing have generally been with folks who've been sort of 10 years or less in a place. But so yeah there's definitely a threshold that like you know when somebody's been someplace for like two or three or four years that like something does shift. But you know, in can the Canadian context I think. And now I'm forgetting for some reason the exact rules but you know people can get citizenship, I think around your five ish. Don't quote me on that I don't sorry for some reason the numbers are falling out of my brain and I can entirely remember why. In Denmark it's definitely like more difficult it's you know it's definitely like a slightly more cumbersome process. But even there you know I spoke sort of in kind of like some parallel or separate kind of parallel but in some separate worker I was speaking to a lot of folks because Denmark has this sort of like idea of like, you know, people, people who are immigrant residents rather than also people who are descendants of non Western immigrants I did talk to a lot of young adults who were, you know, first generation Danish or like Danish born or whatever, you know, however, whatever different phrases you want. So these are folks that have lived their whole lives in Denmark, and you know they are Danish citizens, and their narratives were like surprisingly similar to a lot of the folks who had moved there internationally. But so formal citizenship is important, obviously like it affords you like a certain a certain set of particular rights like in the Danish case, for example, there's this whole. There's all this Michigan around purchasing property like you can't purchase property as a non Danish person without getting the approval of the state and then you have to like report back every year to prove that you're still living there. And like just sort of funny things like that. So yeah, it definitely like impacts people's lives but I think I've been surprised by. I've been surprised not surprised by how much people's actions are not conditioned purely through formal citizenship. That's that's actually been kind of surprising. It's not that surprising. I mean, I think in the States, you know, there's sort of, you know, a lot of really amazing literature around, you know, just undocumented political activism as well and I'm forgetting. There's a lot of great pieces I'm forgetting the names of right now but around sort of like undocumented residents political, you know, engagement and organizing right and sort of trying to tease out how and when and where people who are undocumented engage in political processes right and that might that's getting your name that's everything from like protesting to just like getting friends and family members who are citizens to vote since you can't go right. So people still act as citizens, even without formal status and I think that that's an important part of what that kind of framing of ordinary citizenship helps us to think about. It's a curious answer but I wanted to just kind of make sure that I was not being dismissive of that idea of formal citizenship but yeah I'm in some ways I think I'm kind of surprised by how much in people's ordinary lives they don't necessarily talk about that. Yeah, and I go ahead. Hi. Thank you first of all for your lecture it was amazing to hear. I have a question and I'm not sure if you addressed it I'm just curious to hear like why did you choose Denmark and Copenhagen is your European case, like what led to your decision in this case. Yeah, that's a good question. So yeah, so for me like I said, you know one of the things I was thinking about was I was trying to think about it understand well. There's a couple of reasons some of which are like good and legitimate and some of which are like maybe like for the informal chat but you know what I was trying to think with I was trying to think with these places that were not sort of classic spaces for immigrant residents so I wasn't going to look at London, and I wasn't going to look at New York I wasn't going to look at Toronto, right I was looking at these places where there was in that moment, a substantial immigrant resident, you know immigrant population, and also where it had grown, and also where it was a discussion, where it was sort of a place that people were talking about. So when I started this work. You know. So that was the one hand was like the immigrant resident side of it the other side of it again was like sort of where the nation states were in terms of this sort of processes of liberalization and neoliberalization so the first the original study that I started with. There's actually there's there were three cases there's also an American case that I didn't talk about as much today for different reasons. So looking at these sort of like different stages of neoliberalization and thinking about them in the context for example of, you know, thinking about different flavors of welfare states. So thinking about you know the US as sort of like a strong liberal example thinking about like the Nordic region as being that kind of like strong social democratic region, and thinking about Canada as being that like weird hybrid that was sort of in between. So at the time, it was also interesting because the ways in which the Nordic countries were addressing these two questions these sort of economic, these urban economic questions and the immigrant questions were also diverging and continue to verge diverging interesting ways. So to be honest about it given my brothers I probably would have wanted to be in Norway because it's like, you know it's everyone's just a lot nicer there, but Denmark was the one that actually made a lot more sense. But I'm, but Denmark was one that just like made a lot more sense because of the ways that the state was responding in sort of very strong ways, and very sort of strong negative ways in terms of immigration but then at the same time were maintaining their social democratic aspects of their urban economics or maintaining them in a, in a, in a different way than the other Nordic countries so that was the. So yeah it was that it's that weird balance between sort of like what people were doing in terms of immigration, and what people were doing in terms of that urban economics are trying to find kind of like a balance between them. I think we're just at time. So, thank you very much for your talk for the wonderful responses to the Q&A section. And so we hope to see you all next week for another lecture. Again, here there will be food provided to tell all your friends to come. Great, so thank you so much. Why don't you take a couple of minutes and then we'll do the tech stuff so we can have the PhD chat. Perfect. Thank you so much everybody.