RESIDENTIAL SEGRATION

RESIDENTIAl   SEGREGATION? 

by

          REGINALD   YOUNG

Sociology / Politics / Geography

Residential Segregation

- Constraint, choice or complication?

For  Nazma, Mo, Tatiana and Liberty.

Copyright  ©  Reginald Young  1995.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library.

Produced  by   Reginald  Young.

July   1995.

Printed in the United Kingdom

ISBN   1  899968  05  9

RESIDENTIAL   SEGREGATION - issues           

Introduction.

This article  does not thoroughly  investigate the complex economic, cultural, historical, political, social and ecological factors that are dialectically related to and acting on the processes of segregation  that  transcend diverse geographical spaces locally, nationally, regionally and globally.

However an attempt will be made to present a general brief appraisal of some selected features such as the state, private capitalist institutions involved in finance, construction, production, and land management polices.  Also, consideration will be given to socio-economic inequalities, the political, behavioural and subjective characteristics of individuals and local communities implementing blocking strategies, discrimination,  choice or voluntary factors, pertaining to housing or the housing market, to establish whether an increase in "racial"  or"ethnic"  residential segregation in the UK constitutes a theoretical  complication  particularly when choice or constraint factors are overstated in describing, interpreting and analysing the various complex multiple ecological, economic and political processes that interact dialectically to sustain  segregation.

Various researchers, academics, social scientists, politicians, journalists, social movement activists and policy makers have commented, written and debated profusely on the impact of segregation on "race relations", social policy and socio-economic inequalities. ( Rex and Moore, 1967; Rex and Tomlinson, 1979; Skellington, 1980; Scarman, 1981; Simpson, 1981; CRE, 1984; Phillips, 1986; Henderson and Karn, 1987; Benyon and Solomos, 1987; Solomos and Gurharpal Singh, 1990; S. Smith, 1993.

The concepts of “race” or/and “ethnicity"  are inadequate rational tools in appreciating comprehensively the dialectical interrelated complex processes that encompass the phenomenon of segregation  connected with socio-economic, historical, political, psychological and ecological  factors with world-wide implications.

For these reasons debates concerning cultural or choice factors will not be overstated above socio-economic and ecological determinants. Instead  brief references will be made to cultural, political and socio-economic  factors  to draw out the dialectical complexities implicated with segregation.

SEGREGATION

Some of the features instrumental in the process of residential segregation are; blocking strategies, discrimination, social stratification, and ethnic social cohesion or voluntary segregation.

Segregation  can be defined in various ways.

Ecologically, segregation is defined as a spatial separation of people or institutions into well-defined areas.  (Monkhouse and Small, page 264,1978).

Alternatively, segregation is an enforced separation of racial groups in a community. (Concise Oxford Dictionary, page 1095,1991).

On the other hand, segregation may be also defined as a dialectical process  whereby the degree of segregation is relative to the degree of integration which is measured or determined by the ability to obtain access, or magnitude of mobility to move into, or across other social or geographical spaces. ( i.e. market forces stimulating individual choices.)

The term "racial” or"ethnic" segregation is debatable. It is not clear whether "racial” or “ethnic"  segregation can be explained by "racial” or “ethnic" signification or whether "racial" or "ethnic"  signification corresponds to the changing complex ecological,  economic and legal forms of segregation.

The interaction between socially constructed concepts as segregation, class and  "race”  or “ethnicity"  is a complex process laden with theoretical contentions especially when employed to explain socio-economic inequalities, alienation, degradation, and social conflict.

Therefore to estimate justly the process of residential segregation, the pitfalls of reductionism, biological or cultural determinism, essentialism, reification and blaming the victim syndrome will be avoided. Thus, discrimination and its negative aspects such as prejudice, xenophobia or the contemptuous complexion of racism will be given prominence both as consequences and influences on the complex process of residential segregation. Residential segregation is one of a multiple of repercussions of a socio-economic structure acting interdependently with a developing  historically conditioned mode of production, distribution and exchange system whose negative features  include alienation, social and economic inequality, discrimination, corruption, oppression, exploitation, poverty, deprivation, social unrest and fear.  Furthermore, the term "racial” or “ethnic" segregation may be advantageous in recognising, describing and identifying social groupings as distinguished social spatial entities separated from the host society with its charter group. ( A charter group is the largest recognisable group within a society or community  characteristically marked by its ethnicity, or/and in this case, its perceived “racial” difference based on phenotypical features, that is, skin colour - "white community". )

However, this binary dichotomous macro model terminology does not spot-light the veiled intricate processes of segregation and distinguishable features among, between and within "racial” or “ethnic"  groupings and the host community on a micro scale, where individuals, families, households, various status groups, differential income groups, owner occupiers and tenants all interact interdependently in an ever changing social and physical spatial phenomenon acknowledged as the “residential mosaic”. (Short, page 145,1984).

Factors influencing segregation.

The provision of urban resources and facilities such as transport, education, welfare and housing can be sporadic due to the exigencies of the world capitalist free market, changing life styles, and the increasing demands imposed by a rapid population growth rate resulting from immigration, longer life expectancy and the natural birth rate.

Furthermore, opportunities to gain access to these scarce urban resources and facilities are subject to the interplay of spatial and social constraints, which are arranged by the activities, ideologies and policies of the administrators and controllers of the urban environment.

Particularly in relation to the housing environment the social "gatekeepers"  responsible for managing scarce resources are the executives from the following socio-economic spheres:

(a) Finance Capital.

  Mangers of Building Societies and other loan agencies engaged in lending  money for housing purchase, development and   improvement.

(b) Industrial Capital.

 Developers and Builders.

(c) Commercial Capital.

  Estate Agents, lawyers, and surveyors involved in market  distribution and housing.

(d) Landed Capital.

  Landowners and renters such as private landlords.

(e) State Agencies.

   Housing managers of the public sector, letting officers and housing visitors. -
(Paul Knox, page 222,1984).

The principal types of distancing mechanisms within urban districts of capitalist cities are:

(a)   The divided hierarchical unequal structural social arrangements within the social and physical spaces of capitalist societies as manifested by the various occupations, incomes, educational        attainment, and property values.

(b)   In some instances separate ethnically identified physical spaces are themselves further segregated along social class spaces.      

(c)   The separation of various types of households consisting of two interdependent patterns:

(1)      "Conventional households"  comprising of nuclear families residing in their own detach dwellings from non-family households constituting mostly of rented apartments.

(2)   The distinction among nuclear family territories based on age and sex formations. In other words

young families live apart from families with teenagers which are further separated from families where children have quit home. (R .J. Johnston,  Page 188-189, 1984).

Blocking strategy.

One of the external factors inducing the process of residential segregation is the "blocking strategy".

Existing residence of urban neighbourhoods usually attempt to resist the "incursion"  from other ethnic groups into "their own"  areas by a variety of methods including social hostility, refusal to sell or rent homes, voting strategies, petty violence and intentional vandalism.

Studies done by Taylor (1979) illustrate that during the 1970’s the National Front (NF) obtained unusually a high number of votes in districts accommodating few "blacks"  bordering adjacent districts where "blacks"  were over represented, thereby insinuating that the phenomenon of racist voting was partly a response to the perceived threat of residential "integration"  or "invasion".

Likewise data presented by Husbands (1983) confirms the "blocking strategy"  supposition revealing the xenophobia associated with the perceived or possible "invasion" of families, as one in three attitudinal discriminators, thus confirming deliberate segregation and exclusion that is expressed through racist voting practices which are related to fear of "outsiders", opposition to change and uneasiness of an uncertain future. (Smith, page 154, 1989).                                

 DISCRIMINATION

Another external feature that induces residential segregation is discrimination in the housing market.

In Britain where racial discrimination was rendered illegal by the Race Relations Act of 1976, discriminatory legal barriers and the role of estate agents, building societies, mortgage financiers in the owner occupier sector and private landlords operating as gatekeepers in local sub-markets have perpetuated residential segregation within urban spaces. (Daniel, 1968, Paul Knox, page 252, 1987, Smith, page 87,1991).

Public sector housing is also prone to discriminatory practices which establishes difficulties for "ethnic" communities in gaining access to adequately secure affordable housing or by allocating families to poor quality residential property, especially flats. Also by disproportionately allocating households to unpopular inner-city housing estates thereby polarising the localisation of non-white population in inner-city clusters.

Solomos  articulates:

           “Parker and Dugmore (1976) found widespread discrimination in the

            allocation process of the Greater London Council (GLC). Research in  

            Islington drew similar conclusions (Islington, 1977). Other authorities, such as

            Wandsworth (1979) and Lewisham (1980), also began an examination of their

            procedures and practices in the light of these findings.”

              - (Solomos, page 147, 1991).

Some of these discriminatory practises are unintentional such as the residential selection criterion related to eligibility rules.                                              

On the other hand discrimination may be the result of deliberate personal prejudice, for example, of housing visitors, who may have little or no understanding of the cultural background and family life of immigrant households. (Henderson and Karn 1984; Parker and Dugmore 1976; Peach and Shaw 1980; Knox page 252,1987).

The general outcome of discrimination within the public sector is to minimise the access of "ethnic" households to the housing stock thereby entrapping them in privately – rented accommodation while permitting landlords to bid high rents with inconsiderable security of tenure.

The discriminatory polices of city planners may aggravate unintentional discrimination as for example the neglect of "ethnic"  communities from urban renewal and rehabilitation schemes. (Rex and Moore 1967; Knox, page 252, 1987).

            SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES

Social stratification is another factor that influences residential segregation.

The socio-economic class status of “ethnic” households within the unequal hierarchical socio-economic structure of British society can impose structural limitations on the ability of individual “ethnic”  households to be mobile socially and geographically to gain access to housing through purchasing especially in the private sector.                       

Within the private housing sector the higher the income of a family, the more the effective choice. On the other hand, the more impoverished the family, the fewer the choice or access to housing and the enormous  constraints.

The wealthier households have the first and best choices of the more advantageous sectors of the housing market, while the poor is compelled to accept what remains.

The low income status of most members of "ethnic" community fortifies their absorption within the deprived socio-economic insecure status of the working classes  of the host community.

Migrant labour households enjoy the same misfortunes as the working classes of the charter group because of their socio-economic location within the relations of production and the means of production as non-controllers and non-owners of capital.

Since the booms and crises of the capitalist free market are uncertain and unregulated, the working classes whatever their gender, biological, psychological, or cultural specifications are obliged because of their alienated status, to compete with each other in times of economic recession when unemployment is high, for scarce urban resources such as jobs, housing, educational and other welfare services.                                

The working classes including the migrant labour households are subjected to the power of capital, the state and the outrageous hatreds of misplaced aggression of the oppressed who targets or scapegoats the "racialised" ethnic group as the perceived enemy or problem, instead of concentrating on the socio-economic causes and the perpetuators of their exploitation, oppression and segregation that ultimately legitimises  sexism and racism.

Under such unfortunate circumstances migrant labour households become convenient scapegoats for the socio-economic ills of the capitalist society. (Knox, page 253,1987).

Blocking strategies, discrimination and macro socio-economic inequalities can explain the role of external factors in establishing exclusive obstacles in the process of social and geographical mobility, thereby contributing to the formations of apparent identifiable "ethnic"  spaces  labelled"ethnic"  or "racial"  segregation, but do not explain "ethnic"  social cohesion.

            CHOICE OR INTENTIONAL FACTORS

However, these "ethnic" spaces are not homogeneous, impotent, and inactive, simply reacting and acting as helpless victims to external influences.

These "ethnic"  spaces are occupied by communities consisting of competent prominent and capable individuals and households that have initiated the establishment of successful enterprises, and other "ethnic" community institutions, to provide religious, cultural, leisure, housing, subsistence, financial, medical and other services vital to the survival of the heterogeneous complexion of "ethnic"  spaces, where various households interact with diverse castes, status, tribes, life styles, age, gender and class.

One explanation of the choice factor affecting urban residential segregation in Britain was presented by Badr Dahya (1974) who alleges that most members of the "Asian" community migrated to Britain not because of push factors such as natural disasters and wars, but of pull factors such as economic opportunities based on choice "with the firm intention of returning home". (Dahya, page 83,1884). Known as the "return migration" thesis it claims that the migrant, usually male, adjusts his behaviour to the prioritised interests of the country of origin thus down grading his understanding towards Britain.

This "voluntary non-participation" in the host society compounded by a lack of success in competing for satisfactory houses within the housing market.

Influenced by Dahya (1974) other writers have asserted that the early Asian migrants did not maintain the criterion of housing provision and therefore inclined to accept cheaper inner city housing out of choice. It was suggested that cheaper housing was expediently convenient to send the highest possible payment to their former countries they considered as home.                                    

Residential segregation within the cheaper areas of the inner city was bolstered by the voluntary desires of racial/ethnic communities to live apart from the charter group for social and cultural motives. (Kearsley and Srivastave 1974; Ballard and Ballard 1977; Robinson 1986; P. Sarre, D. Phillips and R. Skellington 1989 ).

Although the Asian communities have experienced various changes in demographic complexion, orientation and goals since the 1960s, (Ballard and Ballard 1977). the myth of return or continued remittances to the homeland, still plays a role in affecting ethnic households’ housing decisions, patterns of social interactions and loyalties to cultures and traditions according to some researchers such as Jeffrey (1976), Brooks and Sing (1970), Anwar (1979) and Robinson (1986).

Furthermore robust evidence concerning the "myth of return"  has been established within a relatively small Pakistani community in Britain, and does not relate to other "racial" or "ethnic" groups who regard Britain as their permanent home. (P. Sarre, D. Phillips and R. Skellington, 1989).

The cohesiveness and stability of ethnic spaces can be explained by the ability and willingness of individuals and households to voluntarily adapt and maximise the opportunities present in “ethnic”  spaces.

This voluntary response to legitimise defensive segregation can be described as:

  (a) An urgent need to feel secure by belonging to a collective where strong loyalties and identification depending on religious or ethnic status helps to furnish a self identity or recognition in and alienated environment.

 (b) Choosing to join such a collective will protect the individual or household against a perceived or actual threat.

(c) The existence of large numbers of ethnic households within the ethnic space can act as a shield for
new comers against an unknown society.

The classic model of the cohesiveness of ethnic space can be illustrated by the Jewish ghetto which

was the result of discrimination yet also served as a basis for maintaining and safeguarding old

customs and traditions. The ghetto also functioned as a transit area for successive newcomers requiring shelter, information, and other services necessary for social progress. (Short, page 137, 1984).

The formation of ethnic spaces for defensive purposes is the result of outside coercive influences perceived or actual and the outcome of internal voluntary coherence. (Shaw, 1979; Knox, page 254,1987).

Another function of "ethnic"  spatial concentration that benefits or attracts "ethnic"  group formation is the massive electoral power that can be mobilised to achieve official representation through the established institutional political process of the urban environment. (Knox, page 256, 1987)

SUMMARY

     The increase in "racial"  or "ethnic" residential segregation in the UK is affected by a multitude of complex factors including:

(a)    Vagaries of the global capitalist free market system which imposes

         limitations on the incomes of households, through unemployment,

         low  wages or high inflation in the housing and property markets and the

         scarcity of urban resources and services, thereby hindering the access to better

         housing opportunities.

(b)    Discrimination, both unintentional and personal.

(c)     Blocking or exclusion strategies of the dominant or charter  group towards

         the inhabitants of different "ethnic"  clusters.

(d)   Involuntary defensive response by members of so-called "ethnic" groupings in

         forming ethnic spaces to combat actual or perceived threats from the

         outside charter group. Thus seeking protection, solidarity and refuge in numbers

         by maintaining the unity, loyalty and identity of "ethnic" communities.                               

 (e)   The formation of ethnic spaces have created opportunities for employment,

         enterprise and prestige for the exceptionally competent individuals within ethnic

         clusters, and a consolation and psychological boost for those who experience

          alienation in the urban environment.

       In general, it is disputable whether constraints or choice factors play independent or separate roles in increasing residential segregation in the UK. Complication punctuates segregation especially in view of the cosmopolitan complexion of most major modern urban environments.

Moreover, the increasing recognition and demand for tolerance towards various "ethnic"  groupings by social democratic social movements campaigning against racism and sexism for the democratisation of residential spaces within civil society. Furthermore, the opportunities and ensuing benefits created by the social process of "integration"  hopefully will enrich the lifestyles of the different "racial"  or "ethnic"  communities residing in multi-cultural environments, in terms of music, art, fashion, cuisine, employment and valuable occupational skills necessary for the manufacturing, commercial and service sectors of the local and national economy.

Furthermore most members of the "racial" or "ethnic"  communities define their identities in pluralistic terms including their British nationality and are prepared to be contented with being different, separate but equal as they accept or demand multi-cultural identities, services, and socio-economic opportunities provided by the "host" community.

Socio-economic factors have highlighted the effects of segregation on individuals excluded from the so-called "racial"  or "ethnic minorities"  but  are included (as most  individuals who are categorised or racialised as belonging to ethnic groups)  in  a subordinate socio-economic class whose members are disproportionately alienated from adequate incomes, resources and political power to gain access, or desegregate into social and physical spaces necessary for a sustainable decent  standard of living.

Positive polices implemented by local and national government to intervene in the free market since World War Two to desegregate (by creating opportunities for social and geographical mobility of disadvantaged social classes defined in terms of "race" and "gender", that were experiencing low incomes, unemployment, inflation, lack of adequate information, urban decay or neglect, perceived or actual "racial"  or "ethnic"  threat and social hazards as riots labelled ethnic conflicts), have during the recent two decades been subjected to an array of disapproval, criticisms and debates from all sides of the political spectrum, the press, social scientists and an increasing frustrated “Silent majority” feeling dissatisfied with an increasing deteriorating living standard.

These controversies were focused mainly on social policy objectives that  were vilified by the new right as “loony Left”.

They include:

            (a)  A denial of  “democratic  freedoms” and “free choice”.

            (b) Restriction of “free market opportunities” and creating a poverty trap for

                 the “disadvantaged” or “underclass” by perpetuating a welfare dependency

                 culture.

            (c) To others, (ranging from the liberal social democrats to the broad left.)

           Civil rights were being infringed by an unnecessary bureaucratic welfare

           state intrusion  into the ordinary private lives of individuals, families,

           and other underprivileged

            (d) Desegregation policies were inherently programmed to fail because:

                  (1)   the inequalities  prevalent in the socio-economic structural processes.                                             (2)  The  causes of segregation were disregarded.

            (e) The majority  of the impoverished population were excluded by social

                   policies designed to integrate  because  the policy makers defined the

                  disadvantaged narrowly  and exclusively on the basis of “race” and

                  "gender" thereby segregating and excluding the majority of the

                   impoverished as individuals and socio-economic class or status groups.

            (f)  Social policies implemented by  the welfare state is conditional  on

                   resources  procured from the powerful hegemonic financial interests

                  controlled,  owned and managed by dominant individuals,families and

                   institutions competing,  adjusting and negotiating an unpredictable,

                  unstable and crises prone global economic environment.

More research  is desired especially  with  regard  the role of the state and private institutions in implementing, reproducing and legitimising segregating mechanisms and policies within particular local communities, local government desegregating procedures, the impact of inadequate incomes, access to updated information on the housing market, the cultures and lifestyles of individuals, households of the so-called "ethnic" communities and "host" communities, the policy objectives of local interest groups campaigning against segregation to question the self-fulfilling prophesy that individuals and underprivileged groups perpetuate “their own”  segregated ghettos, and/or are incapable of appreciating integration into better social spaces.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

F. J Monkhouse and John Small, ‘ A Dictionary of   the Natural Environment’, Edward Arnold, 1970

‘The Concise Oxford Dictionary’, 8th edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991.

John R. Short, ‘Urban Geography’ Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1984.

John Solomos – The Politics of Race and Housing, ‘Policy and Politics’ Vol.19, Number 3, 1991,

147-157.

Susan I. Smith, ‘The Politics of Race and Residence’, Polity Press,1989.

Philip Sarre, ‘Ethnic Minority Housing’, Avebury 1989.

‘Race and Racism in contemporary Britain’ by John Solomos. MacMillan 1990.

'Racism, the City and the State',  edited by  Malcolm Cross and Michael Keith. #.1993.

  ++++