Territorial stigma and the moral politics of place: Boundary work and social distance in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

This article refines territorial stigma theory by examining how residents in three disadvantaged Dutch neighbourhoods negotiate stigma through everyday moral boundary work. Drawing on 216 interviews, we identify two key axes of distinction: behavioural morality (orderly vs disorderly) and welfare deservingness (strivers vs cheats). These dual logics operate across ethnic lines, producing intra-community fragmentation rather than ethnic polarisation. We show how symbolic capital, rooted in respectability, functions both as a coping mechanism and a driver of social division. Residents often deflect stigma onto neighbours, echoing symbolic violence (Bourdieu), while constructing moral economies around deservingness (Lamont). This challenges notions of internalised stigma as personal shame, revealing instead horizontal blame and eroded solidarity. We extend Bourdieu’s concept of distinction to contexts of poverty, where respectability substitutes for economic capital, but weakens trust. Moments of resistance nonetheless persist, particularly in expressions of community pride. Our findings reconceptualise stigma as a relational and ambivalent force within marginalised communities.