‘Race’, Difference and the Inclusive Society

INCLUSION, INTEGRATION AND COHESION II:

The Integrated and Cohesive Society

Peter Ratcliffe

Lecture agenda: key questions

• What are meant by ‘(social) cohesion’ and ‘community cohesion’?

• How do they relate to one another?

And, most crucially:

• What are the implications of the related policies and practices for the equalities agenda?

Background to debates • Summer ‘riots’ of 2001 (cf. last term)• Two government sponsored reports

published – the Denham and Cantle reports• New debates about the existence and alleged

dangers of people living ‘parallel lives’

Specifically the arguments that:

• The separation of communities in most/all areas of life impact negatively on the poorest minority groups

• This is also bad for society more generally

Re-emergence of ‘social capital’

Theoretically, looked to US (again) – work of Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone):

• Re-evaluation of the notion of ‘social capital’• Argument: although ‘bonding capital’ may be

high (for certain groups), this is at the expense of ‘bridging capital’, and

• noted significance of ‘linking capital’

Proposed solution - the promotion of ‘community cohesion’ ( + ‘mixed’ communities)

Theoretical background to ‘cohesion’ debates

Must recognise - this is not a new argument (though the terms differ)

• Since 19th century, sociological theory has debated the ‘social integration - system integration’ dualism, and

• The concept of ‘organic solidarity’ (c.f. Durkheim) and its roots

Official definition of ‘community cohesion’ (initial)

• There is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities

• The diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and valued

• Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and

• Strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods

‘Community cohesion’: indicators

Headline outcome• CC01. The percentage of people who feel that

their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together.

Common vision and sense of belonging• CC02. The percentage of respondents who feel

that they belong to their neighbourhood/town/ county/ England/Wales/Britain

• CC03. Key priorities for improving an area.• CC04. The percentage of adults surveyed who

feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area.

‘Community cohesion’: indicatorsThe diversity of people’s backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated

and positively valued• CC05. The percentage of people who feel that local ethnic differences are

respected.• CC06. Number of racial incidents recorded by police authorities per

100,000.

Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities• CC07. Local concentration of deprivation.• CC08. The percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-

C or equivalent.• CC09. The percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit who have

been out of work for more than a year.

Strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, schools and neighbourhoods.

• CC10. The percentage of people from different backgrounds who mix with other people from different backgrounds in everyday situations.

Methodological considerations

Appeal of these indicators - simple and readily available.

• Surrogate measures of ‘similar life opportunities’ can be obtained from existing official data sources.

• Most local authorities now conduct regular surveys of residents as an integral part of their public relations and/or communications remit.

• Easy to add questions about how respondents view relations between ‘people from different backgrounds’ (assuming they do not do so already). Conceptual problems?

Methodological considerations

What do questions tell us about the level/nature ofunderlying tensions/relations between ‘groups’within a local authority area? Very little(?)

1. Methodology - vague and ambiguous wording, sampling design, and even the choice of the particular mode of interview adopted (structured)

2. Snapshot of people’s answers to such general/broad questions at a particular time and place can generate a high degree of data unreliability.

3. More importantly, what people say about an event clearly does not constitute direct evidence about the event itself.

Methodological considerationsProblems with key indicators: e.g. ‘racial

incidents’ (recorded by the police)

• Provides only a very partial picture as comparatively few instances are actually reported and not all of these are recorded.

• Also the question of what, say, an increase in incident numbers might mean. May simply reflect increased confidence in the police so that people are more willing to report such events. [The same argument holds in the reverse case.]

Policy implications: positive factors

1. Focus on material factors

• Progressive developments in education • Inclusion of deprivation indices, providing an

indication of levels of inequality• Regeneration - key element of policy

2. Local initiatives

• Civic leadership• Inclusive notion of local identity• ‘Myth-busting’

Shifts in policy discourseIncreasing concerns about social instability:

• Immigration flows increasingly diverse (and unpredictable) in the wake of the expansion of the EU from 2004

• apparently increasing rates of radicalisation amongst young Muslims

So…..• Policy discourse focused on both cohesion and

the need to ‘integrate’ migrants. • Launch of Commission on Integration and

Integration (CIC) – ‘real’ agenda?

Commission on Integration and Integration

Despite echoes of 1960s integration agenda, the Commission presented a novel vision for the ‘open communities’ of 2020

• Proposed ‘four key principles……… underpin(ning) a new understanding of integration and cohesion’: ‘shared futures’, ‘a new model of rights and responsibilities’, ‘a new emphasis on mutual respect and civility’, and ‘visible social justice’.

• Also provided a comprehensive definition of an ‘integrated and cohesive community’…..

The ‘Integrated and Cohesive Community’

• There is a clearly defined and widely shared sense of the contribution of different individuals and different communities to a future vision for a neighbourhood, city, region or country

• There is a strong sense of in individual’s rights and responsibilities when living in a particular place – people know what everyone expects of them, and what they can expect in return

• Those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities, access to services and treatment

The ‘Integrated and Cohesive Community’ (cont.)

• There is a strong sense of trust in institutions locally to act fairly in arbitrating between different interests and for their role and justifications to be subject to public scrutiny

• There is a strong recognition of the contribution of both those who have newly arrived and those who already have deep attachment to a particular place, with a focus on what they have in common

• There are strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and other institutions within neighbourhoods

‘Cohesion’ v. ‘Integration’

There is also an attempt to define, and distinguish between, the concepts of ‘cohesion’ and ‘integration’. In their view:

• ‘Cohesion is principally the process that must happen in all communities to ensure different groups of people get on well together; while integration is principally the process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another.’

Problems and ambiguities

• Confused use of the concept ‘community’. Commission really means ‘local population’

• Even then there is a lack of internal cohesiveness of some putative groups.

• As to the notion of ‘integration’, the obvious question is: why is ‘integration’ purely to do with newly arriving groups?

Government response to CIC report

Our vision of an integrated and cohesive community is based on three foundations:

• People from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities• People knowing their rights and responsibilities• People trusting one another and trusting local institutions to act

fairly

And three key ways of living together:

• A shared future vision and sense of belonging• A focus on what new and existing communities have in common,

alongside a recognition of the value of diversity• Strong and positive relationships between people from different

backgrounds

Reflections on new vision

1. One key change – prioritisation of life chances.

2. One of key causes of a lack of ‘cohesion’ concerns elements within the ‘host’ population. The drivers here may or may not be related to ethnicity, culture or faith. This appears to put the case for a wider, more inclusive, notion of ‘social cohesion’.

3. Furthermore, need a more nuanced ‘de-racialised’ or ‘de-ethnicised’ interpretation of both ‘integration’ and ‘cohesion’?

Social CohesionNeed a clear unambiguous statement that addressing the issue

of inequality/unequal life chances is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the achievement of social cohesion(?)

This implies:• that any attempts to achieve good relations between people

from different backgrounds in the absence of a serious push on equality are destined to fail.

• Equally, the achievement of a more equal society does not inevitably ensure harmonious relations between these groups.

So……• both are needed, but within a clearly prioritised policy

strategy

Impact on New Labour agenda

• Equality Act 2010 imposed a statutory duty on local authorities to assess, and then take account of, the impact of their policies on different social groups (the ‘Socioeconomic Duty’) [NB. removed by Coalition within six months of taking office]

• Placed the undermining of spatial segregation (ethnic/class related) at the centre of social policy

Implications of this approach for the ‘equalities agenda’?

Equalities agenda shifted radically in recent years…..

• Publication of Fairness and Freedom: final report of the Equalities Review and the Discrimination Law Review led to Equality Act 2010, as we’ve seen

• Witnessed the move to a more generic approach.

• EHRC responsible for its evaluation and policing

How does this fit with the notions of ‘integration’ and ‘cohesion’

• Will ‘community cohesion’ help to increase the level of ‘integration’ and lead to a greater level of (generic) equality?

• What about material equality in the broader sense, i.e. a more general leveling of the playing field?

And crucially:• Do public authorities now see ‘community

cohesion’ as supplanting, rather than complementing, the equalities agenda?

Is the key to achieving ‘integration and cohesion’ the building of ‘mixed’

communities?

What is a ‘mixed’ community? Mix can relate to age, class, household size/structure as well as cultural/ethnic/faith group

• New Labour policy elided the terms

mixed/sustainable/balanced. Implications? • Main focus was on ‘class’ (in the sense of

‘mixed income’ and mixed tenure)• Coalition policy is likely to generate more

socially uniform neighbourhoods(?)

Promoting ‘mix’ How might greater mix be generated?

• Social housing sector. Choice Based Lettings? Role of BME RSLs?

• Private sector. In multi-ethnic areas, developers have often designed schemes to appeal to all target groups. Generally these don’t appear to have worked…..

• Why do you think this is? • Is this form of social engineering morally/ethically

acceptable?

Spatial ‘Mix’: final thoughts

Is the failure of a ‘mixed’ scheme due to ‘self-segregation’ as many argue?

Finally: the tricky question of the relationship between integration/cohesion and spatial integration (e.g. greater ethnic mix)

• Does spatial integration necessarily imply social integration?

Concluding thoughts

Coalition strategy..

• Retreat from equalities and human rights (e.g. threat to EHRC, Red Tape Challenge, demise of socioeconomic duty, HRA)

• ‘Muscular Liberalism’ – threat to minorities?

• ‘Cleansing’ of the (‘undeserving’?) poor from affluent neighbourhoods