Strategic generosity among local patrons: Place belonging and ethnic exclusion in a transforming lower‐income neighborhood of Tel Aviv

Working at the intersection of exchange theory, urban anthropology, and ethnic racial studies, this article offers an original perspective on role local patrons’ networks in constructing place belonging during change. Inspired by a middle-ground approach to reciprocity, embodying both solidarity distrust within same community, manifested interracial context, proposes integrative term strategic generosity. The concept includes two interlinked layers: combination altruism self-interest practices patron circles as mechanisms for exclusion Others reproducing boundaries between social groups. case study is HaTikva—a lower-income neighborhood downtown Tel Aviv originally inhabited almost exclusively disadvantaged Mizrahi Jews (of Middle Eastern origin), more recently transformed arrival African asylum seekers. Based fieldwork conducted from 2010 2013 among long-term residents, I argue that although patrons use parental metaphors describe their unconditioned giving own community; fact, altruist instrumental actions intermingle management reciprocity network. help vulnerable agents enhance attachment, but time buttress standing exclude non-Jewish Others. These findings are discussed context everyday life marginalized community well barrier integration concept's contribution theory broadly. [strategic generosity, exclusion, belonging, Jews, Aviv] Trabajando en la intersección de teoría del intercambio, antropología urbana y los estudios étnicos raciales, este artículo ofrece una perspectiva el rol las redes intercambio patronos locales construyendo un sentido pertenencia al lugar durante cambio urbano racial. Inspirado por aproximación intermedia reciprocidad, corporeizando tanto solidaridad como desconfianza dentro misma comunidad étnica, manifestada contexto interracial, propone término integrativo generosidad estratégica. El concepto incluye dos capas entrelazadas: combinación altruismo autointerés prácticas entre étnica círculos patronal mecanismo para exclusión Otros raciales reproduciendo límites grupos sociales. estudio caso es HaTikva –un vecindario bajos ingresos centro originalmente habitado casi exclusivamente judíos mizrajíes desfavorecidos (de origen medio oriental), más recientemente transformado arribo africanos búsqueda asilo. Basado trabajo campo conducido residentes con larga estadía, argumento que, aunque usan metáforas parentales describir su dar incondicional propia comunidad; hecho, acciones altruistas e instrumentales se entremezclan manejo red reciprocidad. Las ayudan agentes vulnerables mejoran apego mizrajíes, pero mismo tiempo refuerzan posición excluyen no judíos. Estos hallazgos son discutidos vida cotidiana marginalizada, así barrera integración contribución ampliamente. [generosidad estratégica, lugar, mizrají, מאמר זה, הממוקם בצומת בין תיאוריית החליפין, אנתרופולוגיה אורבנית ולימודי אתניות וגזע, מציע נקודת מבט ייחודית אודות תפקיד רשתות חליפין של נותני חסות מקומיים בהבניית תחושת שייכות למקום בעת שינוי עירוני. המאמר שואב השראה מגישת ביניים לחליפין הכוללת התייחסות לשילוב סולידריות וחוסר אמון בתוך אותה קבוצה אתנית ובוחנת את מופעיה בהקשר גזעי. לתיאור התופעה אני מושג בשם “נדיבות אסטרטגית” הכולל שני רבדים: השיזור זולתנות ואינטרסנטיות בפעולות החליפין החוסות הקהילה האתנית; ובנוסף- תפקוד מערכות כמנגנוני הדרה ביחס לאנשים מרקע גזעי אחר באופן שמשעתק גבולות קבוצות חברתיות. מקרה הבוחן הוא שכונת התקווה—שכונת עוני בדרום תל אביב, שרוב תושביה הראשונים היו מזרחים (יהודים יוצאי מדינות מוסלמיות) שהשתנתה עם הגעתם מבקשי מקלט אפריקאים. בהתבסס על עבודת שדה שנערכה בקרב התושבים הוותיקים השנים 2010–2013, טוען כי אף שנותני החסות המזרחים משתמשים במטאפורות הוריות כדי לתאר הנתינה שלהם לקהילתם כבלתי תלויה בדבר, בפועל פעולות אלטרואיסטיות ואינסטרומנטליות התערבבו שבו ניהלו החליפין. אלו נמצאו כמסייעות פגיעים בחיזוק השייכות המזרחית למקום, אבל בה העצימו מעמדם בשכונה, והדירו האפריקאים הלא יהודים “האחרים”. הממצאים נידונים לחיי היום-יום קהילה שולית, כחסם לאינטגרציה וביחס לתרומת המושג לתיאוריית הרחבה. On quiet summer afternoon, visited Orna her modest apartment south Aviv. middle-aged woman hosted me generously, vibrant conversation ensued. Attentive environment, stopped talking when she heard vague sound fall coming outside. She rushed downstairs see whether anyone was hurt. quickly followed discover that, indeed, older neighbor had tripped while gardening. Only certain he not severely hurt did we resume our conversation. My long acquaintance with taught willingness part ongoing support people neighborhood, many whom were Jews—first- second-generation migrants Islamic countries who suffered discrimination Israel's Ashkenazi elite (Jewish immigrants European descent). Although herself Jew accordingly struggled socioeconomic barriers earlier life, now pillar involved network exchange. came realize generosity just altruistic strong dimension, became control resources. power relations embedded position further highlighted upon recent transformation, thousands seekers Sudan Eritrea settled neighborhood. Despite some neighborly migrants, latter excluded Research has examined meaning patterns low-income settings, particularly United States. While scholars 1960s 1970s emphasized poor (Billingsley, 1968; Stack, 1974), others, mainly 1990s 2000s, stressed individualism (Brewster Padavic, 2002; Smith, 2007; Wacquant Wilson, 1989), suggests “selective solidarity” (Raudenbush, 2016). Selective indicates rely others carefully selecting partners. Relatedly, selective can lead what Aharoni, Sa'ar, Lewin (2022) call “communitarian ethics care”—exclusionary caring activities armed conflict. ethnographic security concerns Israeli citizens living near Gaza Strip, they show how Jewish community's care intertwined segregative discourse therefore disengage moral dilemmas concerning suffering Palestinians across border. Whereas emphasizes group, care” draws line “rival” ethno-national communities. Raudenbush (2016) shows Black residents continue maintain tend limit them record or trusted friends neighbors. Conversely, reveal activists, mostly women, reject notion universal human rights relation community. Building these contributions, examine immersed racial-exclusion mechanism separatist state. In caught liminal position, having denied Arab background attempt belong collective (Shenhav, 2006; Shohat, 2003) been elite, forced live remote “development towns” neighborhoods such (Yiftachel Tzfadia, 2004). Their desire be included also led non-Jews, right-wing nationalist agenda most espouse (Daniele, 2020; Lavie, 2011). Accordingly, main argument advanced below distinct type constructed through HaTikva. suggested conceptualization dimensions. First, it refers takes into account patron-client asymmetry Second, serve emphasis relevant, wield major resources modulate exchanges based personal communal interests. exploration will shed light relatively marginal Israeli-Jewish drawing migrants. addition, allow examination national central role, revealed designed (among other things) symbolic spontaneous unconditional giving, practices. Moreover, interpersonal responds transformation HaTikva, extended only toward members excluding minorities. interviewees center Shimi, former resident current owner spice shop. narratives against broader relations. Attention devoted kin-like interactions identity. Specifically, traces kinship longtime which enhances status. begins reviewing literature city. It then discusses boundary-work Israel, before presenting method sociohistorical Next, short comparison made patrons, detailed ethnography Finally, discuss integration, Classic (Lévi-Strauss, 1969; Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, [1925] Sahlins, 1965) indirect generalized than three created stronger members. More recently, supported empirically, providing evidence greater solidarity, commitment, unity compared direct (Molm, Collett, Schaefer, Willer, Flynn, Zak, 2012). Similar have found accounts Eckstein, 2001; Hill, 1971; 1974). Urban ethnographers key practice survival its association identity construction. Carol Stack's (1974) formative All Our Kin, example, presents thick description Americans poverty swap “food, stamps, rent money, TV, hats, dice, car, nickel here, cigarette there, food, milk, grits, children” (32). As shown exchanged goods services indeed important economic survival, pivotal underlying elements Several studies pointed decline growing associated 1989). A chains distinctly cohesive individualistic. Instead, relied each and, time, selected restricted according needs “Selective captured aspect expressive dimensions (Eisenstadt Roniger, 1984). Ethnographic linking may include close kin often relatives friends. Thus, challenge individualist family boundaries: nonrelative treated (Chatters, Taylor, Jayakody, 1994; Ebaugh Curry, 2000; Hull Ortyl, 2019; Johnson, 1999; McCarthy, Hagan, Martin, Rae, 1992). Namely, “do do” invested similar reciprocal relationship (White, 2000, 125). For male friend addressed “grandfather” (Ibsen Klobus, 1972), American street-corner men present themselves “brothers” (Liebow, 1967). This apparent investigation, follow demonstrate acquire socially recognized engaging domestic circle helpful kinfolk. Stack claims incorporated one's if satisfy one another's expectations, kin, accordingly. However, account, those called (whether family, country) level, per se, rather linked larger, state-centered, discourse. authors vividly opposed tendency view “universal ideal,” contexts, operate exclusionary “distinguishes insiders outsiders.” distinction viewed securitized related “the imagined community” (2–4). Following approach, offer critical “patrons” refer extended-family terms, dual ideal image nurtured themselves. Generally, anthropological research portrayed access engaged “clients” Patrons do clients, since means production, markets, centers 1980; Strathern, 2014). return instrumental, economic, political resources, receive loyalty solidarity. processes broadly element agreement might develop friendships ritual ties, become ambivalent conflictual (Corra Lazar, 2004; Palomera, 2014; Weiss, article, sustaining “generalized exchange” (Malinowski, 1974; Takahashi, 2000), seek immediate enjoy respect granted process. locate positioning “pockets,” emphasizing dimension behavior aspects. At my material highlights new context. setting, over positions pillars motivates resistance neighborhood's transformation. face little attention defensive tool working-class non-Hispanic white women Greenpoint, Brooklyn, used resist street-life real-estate-market monitoring (DeSena, 1994a). Particularly, informal housing properties sale advertised word mouth, process strengthened religious institutions 1994b). Indeed, change result clashes old-timers “right city” character, involves (Öz Eder, 2018; Shamur, Smajda Gerteis, Long-term perceive newcomers threat coping resource (Shamur, Shamur Marom, 2021). below, plays significant sense creating course chains. should understood character state, outsiders (Aharoni, Lewin, 2022; Kravel-Tovi, When analyzing construction contemporary aspects taken account: (1) internal hierarchies collective, especially suppressed periphery; (2) reproduction Under conditions, represents Jews’ struggle society maintaining collective. investigation focuses patron's identified HaTikva's residents. order, marked problematic (Sasson-Levy, 2013). stigma rooted Zionist discourse, essentially Western. Khazzoom's (2003) “The Great Chain Orientalism” explains West/East divide project. According her, worldwide stigmatized Oriental. internalized stigma, arrived Israel country Subsequently, project form self-improvement motivated Arabs emerging society. Compared credited establishing “Orient” held inferior. cultural delegitimized suppressed, including 1988, 1999, 2003). persists society, still underrepresented academic judicial systems, mainstream media (Mizrachi Herzog, 2012), encounter denying entitlement (Sasson-Levy Shoshana, 2013; Selinger, 2018). discriminatory order spatially reproduced sphere (Tzfadia Yacobi, 1950s 1960s, first destination immigrants, indicating socio-geographical marginality. young state peripheral areas borders ensure domination depopulated Palestinian areas. Once achieved, government failed allocate sufficient sustain towns. marginality, moreover, limited development towns could traced margins cities Ethno-class disparities Aviv, particular, space, northern middle-class southern home (Cohen Margalit, 2015; Rotbard, 2015). Nevertheless, decades, climbed ethno-class ladder, middle class ethnically mixed experiencing Leon, 2008). make up in-between category They majority, yet Jews. result, assimilation rejection feel need prove “loyalty” expressed parties advocating elaborated elsewhere 2018), empathized seekers’ vulnerability felt anger. objected presence vocal public demonstrations. behind scenes, despair melancholy, claiming Africans’ move represented racism indication marginality Jewish-Israeli strove distance threatened “re-blacken” disappointed upper-class rights, ignoring difficulties “their people.” Therefore, calls following migration urbanity. invites scrutiny ethno-religious non-Jews. large minority (Ghanem, Karkabi, 2021; Monterescu, 2009; Yiftachel, Soviet Union (Kravel-Tovi, 2012; Raijman Pinsky, 2011), decade ago (Kalir, extensive however, there systematic addressing strengthen belonging. addresses lacuna examining materials collected data presented here derives 2010–2013. larger various pathways tactics attachment emotion aroused due 2020, 2023). During fieldwork, volunteered elderly, took food-distribution initiative. day centers, history group 12 28 weekly meetings recorded transcribed, women's biographies connection addressed. documented protest participated dealing issue. dozens conversations six formal interviews Below, highlight meaningful developed strengthening elaborate sites illustrate complexity networks—the where market shop worked full-time food-service worker cashier months. places reflexive comments discussions informants importance pockets mediators integration. Strategic reflect useful understanding mixture egoism “go-along” (Kusenbach, 2003; Lager, Van Hoven, Huigen, 2013) seeker comprehend perceived space. met several accompanied walks, provided administrative assistance ministry. focus practices, explored detail elsewhere, provide contextualized about group. About 30,000 currently 70 percent 20 (Population Immigration Authority, Most (85 percent) men, 5,000 Eritrean exposed severe exploitation (Gebreyesus et al., Approximately one-third lived decade, employed restaurants hotels. Though precise number unknown (Physicians Human Rights 2019), apparent, evoking loss 40 12,000 there. populated established 1935 manual laborers municipality, Yemenite built houses orchard bought nearby village Salamah. Until 1948 war, next active expelling neighbors—who shared similarities Jews—found replacement mutual partly creation separate system, municipality's refusal recognize territory pre-state period. instance, times violent conflict Palestinians, encountering environmental hazards (especially occasional floods), assist another official arrived.