Race, Housing and Community

Perspectives on Policy and Practice

Harris Beider

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781444354478
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Jura
• Subtopic: Wohnungs- & Stadtentwicklungsrecht

This book provides an important new contribution to debates around housing policy and its impact on community cohesion.

There has never been a more prescient time to discuss these concepts: the book provides an interpretation of housing, race and community cohesion in a highly politicized and fluid policy context. It is designed to initiate discussion and debate but this should not be esoteric and limited to a group of academics. Rather the objective is to bridge academic and policy audiences in the hope that this fusion provides a basis for a new agenda to discuss these topics.

Race and community have been key features of social housing policy over the last 20 years with many high-profile interventions, from the proactive approach by the Housing Corporation to support black and minority ethnic housing associations, to the influential Cantle Report documenting segregation in towns and cities following riots, and the National Housing Federation led Race & Housing Inquiry leading to sector wide recommendations to achieve equality.

However, volume of policy interventions and reports has not been matched by academic outputs that co-ordinate, integrate and critically analyse 'race', housing and community.

Housing, Race & Community Cohesion is the first systematic overview of 'race', housing and community during this tumultuous period. The material presented is robust and research based but also directly engages with issues around policy and delivery. It is designed to reflect the interests both of the academic research community and policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic. It is not rooted to specific policy interventions that could quickly date but instead focuses on developing new ways to analyse difficult issues that will help both students and practitioners now and in the future.

1

Race, Housing and Community

Introduction

This book seeks to critically analyse the story of race, housing and community cohesion. They have different meanings for different audiences. This is not surprising since race, housing and community cohesion do not especially lend themselves to a sterile analysis. The problem with these debates is that there is very little end product resulting from the critique of race and community cohesion.

Some have argued that community cohesion should be regarded as the antithesis of multiculturalism. As we will see in more detail later in this chapter, community cohesion is sometimes viewed as bleaching race from public policy debates and replacing it with a much more insipid fluid. There is a level of concurrence with this perspective. However, community cohesion should not be regarded as neutral. Rather the opposite. It is a highly ideological response to race during a remarkable and politicised period in our history. The concept has been influential in public policy debates in shaping the direction, content and trajectory of travel.

Housing has been a key metaphor for race and community cohesion. Indeed, housing publications have illuminated the discourse on race and more latterly, community cohesion. Policy analysts have generated research, guidance and impact measures on race and community cohesion. Practitioners need to utilise academic research and policy guidance in making sense of conflict for public resources between and within communities.

So much for the reduced significance of race and community cohesion in recent years. There has never been a prescient time to discuss these concepts in relation to housing. The book provides an interpretation of housing, race and community cohesion in a highly politicised and fluid policy context. It is designed to initiate discussion and debate. This should not be esoteric and limited to a group of academics. Rather, the objective is to bridge academic and policy audiences in the hope that this fusion provides a basis for a new agenda to discuss these topics.

This first chapter will place the book in context. We will assess how academic contributions to race and housing reflected national policy imperatives and provided a context to discussion about the impact minorities have on housing and neighbourhoods. This is not so much about passive responses but the contention is that academic research was shaped by public policy. To make sense of this and also provide a context, housing and race will be explored from 1945. Necessarily we will be selective but the timeframe we review is important given that the first phase of minority migration to the UK took place during the 1950s and 1960s. The contributions will be grouped into four distinct categories: passive culturalism, choice and constraint, social conflict, politics and power, and cultural resistance. They are not clinically sequential but do reflect broad periods in the post-war period. Race and housing research has been shaped by the choice/constraint paradigm. Here it is argued that this has been more of a hindrance rather than a help.

An early note about race

Before continuing on to discuss race and housing, it is important to clarify our understanding of the term race. This is a deeply contested concept. Though extensively used in literature, the roots of race suggest that it is flawed as an analytical concept (see Back and Solomos, 2000, for an overview of theories of race).

It could be argued that earlier studies of minority communities accepted the notions of both race and race relations (Banton, 1955; Glass, 1960; Patterson, 1963; Rex and Moore, 1967). Though there was disagreement about the precise locus and development of ‘race,’ these publications shared the view that race could be analysed, largely within a framework of interaction between the dominant white communities and new immigrants from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent.

Research and subsequent publications influenced a discussion about phenotype differences between groups. It has been suggested that the concept of race is based on a biologically determinist concept (Miles, 1982). Indeed, Britain’s imperialist adventures in the nineteenth century had been partly predicated on the application of race in this way. The concept of race and ‘racial’ ideology supported the subjugation of people and communities across the British Empire, the assumption being that British people (being white) were superior to these groups (being non-white). Indeed, Patterson’s title Dark Strangers is loaded with political and racist imagery (Patterson, 1963). Banton (1967, 1997) has been an influential proponent of race relations theory. The focus of his work is the study of diverse groups in society based on cultural difference, the development of relations between different racial categories and a narrative about the usage of race. Developing this framework further he argues that six stages of race relations can be deduced: institutionalised contact, acculturation, domination, paternalism, integration and pluralism (Banton, 1967). This theoretical paradigm (sometimes known as the race relations problematic) appears to closely parallel public policy priorities on race relations.

Rex’s theory of race relations is grounded in the seminal publication Race Relations in Sociological Theory (Rex, 1983). His model is based on social conflict. It views race relations as being structured by conditions existing within society including competition over scarce resources (such as access to housing), class exploitation, cultural segregation, varying group access to power, and minorities filling the role of an underclass within an urban context. This type of analysis borrows significantly from the work of Weber (1976). As we will see later when reviewing race and housing literature, Rex and his associates were especially interested in differential access to housing, education and employment markets and how racial discrimination led to the formation of political action that was disconnected from class conflict (see Rex and Tomlinson, 1979).

Though employing different approaches to race relations theory, both Banton and Rex acknowledge the concept of race and the existence of race relations. This has been strongly disputed by a number of academics and activists. For Miles (1982; 1995) race is an ideologically constructed term that forms the basis for racism and the domination of groups of people. Those that use the term have given it a dangerous legitimacy. The problem with race as an analytical category is best summarised by Guillaumin:

Whatever the theoretical foundations underlying the various interpretations of ‘racial’ relations, the very use of such a distinction tends to imply the acceptance of some essential difference between types of social relation, some, somewhere, being specifically racial. Merely to adopt the expression implies a belief that ‘races’ are real or correctly apprehensible, or at the best that the idea of race is uncritically accepted …’ (cited in Miles, 1995: 72)

Miles further suggests that the concept of race is a distraction from the importance of class. Whilst recognising that capitalist societies need a mobile and reserve army of labour (which may be racialised) to meet requirements of capital accumulation, there is no room in the analysis of race as driver for progressive change (Miles, 1982). Miles concedes that race is a term that is used in everyday language. He also agrees that the term has been reclaimed by black activists since the 1960s as a form of resistance against racism. However, it remains an ideological construct and only serves to confuse the primacy of class and economics.

The importance of the economy is further stressed in explanations for post-war migration to the UK. Castles and Kosack in a classic study of the subject viewed immigration from poor to rich countries as an essential tool to support capitalist expansion (Castles and Kosack, 1973). The same point is made by Sivanandan who suggests that Britain’s imperialist past effectively underdeveloped the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent (Sivanandan, 1982). The economies were in such poor condition by the time of decolonisation that they created ‘push’ factors for people to migrate to seek new jobs. Peach suggests that Caribbean migration was closely linked to the needs of the British economy in the post-war period. People settled in areas where there was a labour shortage. Once labour shortages had eased Caribbean migration slowed down (Peach, 1968).

Reviewing patterns of minority settlement in the UK demonstrates the validity of economic explanations of migration. Minorities continue to be concentrated in metropolitan areas. In effect, they were a replacement labour force for the British economy (Miles, 1982; Smith, 1989).

The analysis by Miles is the most concerted attempt to theorise an explicitly Marxist analysis of race but there are weaknesses in his approach (see Solomos, 1986 for a detailed discussion). The reluctance to discuss the progressive role of culture and ideology is a serious problem. Black politics both in the United States and the UK have used these components to reference radical initiatives against the State. For example, the Notting Hill Carnival started as a celebration of Caribbean culture but became a point of resistance against heavy handed police tactics in the 1970s and 1980s. More recently Islamaphobia in the UK has led to Islam being employed by some British Muslims as a form of cultural resistance against growing acculturation. Whilst accepting that race is a pejorative concept in common sense usage, culture and ideology (that may be bounded by references to a generic black identity or faith) are key agents for change and resistance used by minority groups. Miles’ reluctance is based on a Marxist reductionism which superimposes class as the most important reference point for discussing race. This, too, is limiting in the same way as the earlier discussion of race is redundant.

The ready acceptance of race as a concept has also been criticised as reifying group behaviour for ‘racial’ groups. To this end it fuels debates that research has led to ‘common sense’ understanding of minority groups based on racist and stereotypical assumptions (Sivanandan, 1982; CCCS, 1982, especially chapters by Lawrence). There are a number of specific charges levelled at Rex and Banton. The most important is the pathologies used to account for the behaviour of minority groups. For example, ‘Afro-Caribbean’ youth are variously described as having a ‘criminalised dreadlock sub-culture’ (cited in Lawrence, 1982). Asian groups are at once viewed as being passive and yet possessing cultural bootstraps that will support them in British society. The contrast with ‘Afro-Caribbean’ groups is striking.

If the West Indian is plagued by self-doubt … and seeks a culture which will give him a sense of identity, the Asians have religions and cultures and languages of which they are proud and which may prove surprisingly and suited to the demands of a modern industrial society. (Rex and Tomlinson, 1979: 117)

Normative assumptions and ascribed group behaviours may considerably weaken race as a concept. Rex and Tomlinson’s reification of African-Caribbean and Asian communities is a case in point. Research does not analyse the differences within a group shaped by gender, age and class. Neither does the research focus on the modes of collective resistance within minority communities against racism, harassment and fascist attacks in the post-war period (Sivanandan, 1982; Lawrence, 1982; Gilroy, 1987).

The reification of minority groups has been a strong influence in public policy debates. This, combined with the importance attached to culture and resistance within black politics from at least the 1960s, helps to explain why concepts of ‘white’, ‘black’ and to a lesser extent ‘brown’ are still widely used (for example the Housing Corporation’s Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Policy; black led housing associations).

It is advisable to take a practical and informed view of race. First, research has shown the importance of culture in informing the identity of minority communities across the country. Sivanandan provides a vivid account of culture and black resistance in the post-war period. It seems that that culture dissociated from the racist and biological use of race needs to be included for meaningful discussion (see Sivanandan, 1982; Fryer, 1984; Gilroy, 1987). Second, culture should also be celebrated in its own right as adding diversity within communities and providing choice. A cultural approach in social housing helps to meet specific and nuanced needs within groups. Third, culture should also be viewed as a form of social resistance when collective interests are challenged (Bourne and Sivanandan, 1980; Sivanandan, 1982; Lawrence, 1982). For example, this was utilised by minority groups to champion black led housing associations as a response to the failure of housing providers to meet needs; it informed analysis of riots and rebellions, most noticeably in 1981 and 1985, as well as culture, which can currently be seen in the way Islam is being used as a rallying point for Muslims in the fevered political climate in which we now live. Finally, race and racism are used in everyday language within policy and practice communities. These terms are unavoidable and should be at least acknowledged and justified by researchers working in the field.

An understanding of race is critically important. Race has been, and remains, a highly contested concept. However, it is, along with culture, vital in moving debates forward. This is especially crucial within the current policy and political climate given the discussion about identity, citizenship and territory as ushered in by the 2001 riots (Home Office, 2001), the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, and the 2005 bombings on the transport network in London. Race and culture should not be regarded as esoteric concepts but fundamental to the future direction of society.

This book is about race and housing. At the outset we need to understand the framework for key debates and to this end we will now review a selection. In doing so we suggest that there are four different typologies on race and housing literature. This closely mirrors public policy interventions that help to understand sequencing and content.

Passive culturalism

It could be argued that the first and earliest strand of research on race and housing has been termed passive culturalism and is often associated (though not exclusively) with studies undertaken in the 1950s and 1960s. The approach is characterised by an anthropological method to studying newly emerging minority communities and an absence of the discussion of power, conflict and racism.

The context is large scale immigration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent in the post-1945 period which was concentrated in major urban centres of England. At this point it should be noted that a black presence in Britain had been recorded for many centuries and publications have celebrated the role, presence and resistance of these established groups before 1945 (for example, Fryer, 1984). However, the point we are making here is that post-war immigration helped to fuel the perception about adverse neighbourhood change in urban centres. This became so unsettling to politicians and policy makers in the 1950s that Churchill considered using the slogan ‘Keeping Britain White’ to mobilise popular support at a General Election (Layton-Henry, 1984). A common misconception was that the 1950s was a benign political environment. This was far from the case. Indeed, MPs repeatedly intervened during Parliamentary debates in the 1950s to call for restrictions on immigration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent (see Carter et al., 1987).

Despite immigration helping to sustain a post-war economic boom by providing an accessible army of labour for shortages in key industries, these newly emerging minority communities presented a policy dilemma for the State, namely to politically restrict immigration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent at a time when cheap labour was required to maintain growth. National debates on race were being justified on the basis of the ‘problem’ that immigration was generating in towns and cities. The image of neighbourhoods being transformed became popularised during this period and continues to resonate in the discourse on race and immigration. Indeed, immigration played a significant role during the 2010 General Election and was highlighted at several times in the televised leadership debates. During the 1950s, concern was expressed partly because it was believed that immigrants were in competition with white communities for housing, health and employment. It should be noted that public housing was generally perceived as tenure of aspiration for a broad range of people living in the UK. It compared favourably with private sector housing to rent which was unregulated, of poor quality and located in neighbourhoods of economic decline (Malpass and Murie, 1994; Pawson and Mullins, 2010).

We contend that a passive culturist approach framed studies of race and housing during this period. Leading publications on race (Little, 1947; Richmond, 1954; Banton, 1955; and Patterson, 1963) emphasised that the conflict was due to cultural differences between immigrant and host communities. Over time, conflict would ease because of increased interaction between groups and the goal of integration reached. As we have discussed, Banton (1967) developed a theory of race relations predicated on increased cultural understanding leading to stability. These earlier studies focused on minority communities living in urban centres. For example, Little and Richmond concentrated on describing the conditions of Somali groups living in Cardiff and Caribbean migrants in South Liverpool respectively. There was very little discussion about discrimination by public and private sectors or harassment of new migrants by established communities. Instead researchers appeared to approach race as a psychological problem. The main aim of Little’s study was to: ‘…examine the social interactions and reactions resulting from the specific presence of coloured people in Britain…and the patterns of coloured-white relations could add to the political awareness and understanding of a social problem.’ (Little, 1947: 1).

A notable example of the passive culturist approach can be viewed in Patterson’s Dark Strangers (Patterson, 1963) which is a study of relationships between Caribbean migrants and white communities in Brixton. This publication exemplifies, as suggested by its title and content, the impact of immigration on traditionally white neighbourhoods. The terminology is grounded in the immigrant-host praxis and identifies the problem of race to be with Caribbean migrants rather than racism in housing and wider society. ‘Common sense’ narratives help to construct race and immigration as critical issues that need to be addressed by local and national policy. Here, it could be construed that minority communities are viewed as a threat to stability, housing resources and established white residents.

Open doors, its friendly room to room visiting, the noise of music and conviviality, the quarrelsome voices from rooms in which gambling, ganja-smoking and drinking goes on may be enough to drive out all but the elderly, lone white tenant. (Patterson, 1963: 167)

The onus appeared to be on minority communities to either ‘trade off’ minority identity for a British cultural view or, alternatively, wait until relations between different groups were stabilised over a period of time. Competition for housing between established communities and new migrants is considered by Patterson and other publications during this period. Discrimination is discussed but is largely contextualised within a host-immigrant framework (Patterson, 1963).

These passive culturist studies only serve to demonstrate the problems of reification and stereotyping of groups that impact on race and housing. Of course, largely anthropological accounts are bas...