The 2001 Riots Social Capital Sociology Essay Essay
This present literature reappraisal will critically sketch and discourse the cardinal subjects of this thesis. First, an debut to the 2001 public violences will be elucidated before analyzing the varying diagnosings of why the public violences took topographic point. Subsequently the cardinal constructs of multiculturalism and community coherence be outlined with unfavorable judgments and similarities explored in order to analyze the effects that the public violences in 2001 had on authorities policy of pull offing diverseness. The present reappraisal will so size up constructs built-in to community coherence in more item such as the impression of the community, societal capital, integrating and segregation and citizenship, which have all been highlighted in policy as factors that can be manipulated in order to accomplish greater community coherence.
The 2001 Riots
The start of the community coherence docket can be traced back to eruptions of urban public violences in the Towns of Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001 ( Robinson, 2005 ) . These perturbations chiefly involved Asiatic young persons protesting against a long history of want, racism, force and constabulary invasion against the constabulary or white people, some of whom had links with the Far Right ( Amin, 2003 ; Burnett, 2007 ) . This led to a moving ridge of urban upsets in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the spring and summer of 2001 ( Bagguley and Hussain, 2006 ) . Constantly referred to as ‘race public violences ‘ in the media, they were frequently portrayed as an Asiatic job portraying the immature work forces involved as thankless and unpatriotic immigrants ( Robinson, 2005 ) . The scenes of robbery, fires, smashed Windowss and force shocked the state and led to widespread inquiring of how cohesive Britain was ( Cantle, 2001 ) . The force took topographic point in some of the most disadvantaged countries of the state which led to some oppugning whether the public violences were more a consequence of want than tensenesss between racial groups ( Burnett, 2004 ) . Alternate theories of why the public violences occurred blamed greater influences of racism and perceived mistreatment by the constabulary over a long period of clip ( Kalra 2003 ) . Other faculty members have suggested the diminution of the fabric industry may hold been a cardinal cause of the inequalities and want that led to the public violences. For illustration, Amin ( 2002 ) suggested that the economic prostration of the fabrics industry led to the loss of one of the cardinal sites of integrating, every bit good as over a coevals of lasting unemployment and economic adversity.
These public violences led to a series of policy paperss denoting the purpose of ‘community coherence ‘ which had rather a different diagnosing of the jobs. The diagnosing of the public violences concluded that they had been caused by a deficiency of ‘social coherence ‘ , closely linked to the equivocal thought of the community, and was to be rebranded ‘community coherence ‘ in 2002 ( Worley, 2005 ) . Furthermore, multiculturalism was framed as the cause of this segregation, with it been stated as a set of policies that encouraged people to concentrate on difference instead than what they have in common, prima to people populating ‘parallel lives ‘ as first elucidated in The Cantle Report in 2001. However it was non examined why ‘parallel lives were being lived. Therefore the incrimination for the perturbations was placed on the fact that communities lived individually from one another with small meaningful interaction and this allowed for misinterpretations ( Burnett, 2007 ) . The Denham Report likewise criticised the sensed segregation in metropoliss in the United Kingdom. In order to battle the perceived sick effects of multiculturalism the assorted studies encouraged a new focal point on citizenship, shared values, integrating and duologue all of which formulated the footing of the community coherence docket ( mentions ) . However, vbefore sketching the community coherence docket, its ideological predecessor, multiculturalism, will necessitate to be scrutinised.
Pull offing diverseness
A subject shared by both community coherence and multiculturalism is the accusal that it is a loose term or as a obscure dianoetic field ( Hall, 2001 ) . Multiculturalism, can either be seen as fact and as a form of diverseness, or as a set of policies and a moral stance towards diverseness ( Meer and Modood, 2012:179 ; Werbner 2012:197 ) . Therefore multiculturalism can be deemed what Laclau and Mouffe ( 1985 ) refer to as an ’empty form ‘ , with different states and different metropoliss within the same state holding different purposes and attacks ( Greenberg and Miazhevich, 2012 ) . Similarly there are difficult and soft manners of multiculturalism, where a differentiation made between ‘soft ‘ and ‘hard ‘ manners of multiculturalism, with a ‘soft ‘ manner an person is free to show their cultural individuality as they choose, in a difficult version nevertheless a community may see other communities as presenting a menace and so lawfully and socially enforce its ain traditions ( Greenberg and Miazhevich, 2012 ) .
Underliing much of this resistance is the impression that multiculturalism Fosters accentuated cultural differences alternatively of similarities, taking to separateness which in bend may take to tenseness ( Wood et al, 2006 ; Vertovec, 2010 ) . In the UK and Germany in peculiar multiculturalism is blamed for immigrants or cultural minorities populating ‘parallel lives ‘ ( Cantle, 2006 ; Fomina, 2006 ) . As such, some position multiculturalism as the cause of residential and societal segregation, intending it became viewed as the cause of the failure of integrating ( Werbner 2012:197 ) . Pilkington ( 2008 ) and Cheong et Al ( 2007 ) lineation two critics of multiculturalism: Goodhart ( 2004 ) and Trevor Phillips ( 2004 ) . For Goodhart, the debatable nature of multiculturalism is cultural diverseness itself, observing that in-migration has involved so much cultural diverseness that it ‘s progressively debatable to prolong a public assistance province as people are less willing to redistribute their revenue enhancements with those considered aliens. Phillips ( 2004 ) as former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) disagrees, suggesting that the issue is non the multicultural itself as Goodhart advocates, but multiculturalism, the policies that support cultural minorities keeping their distinguishable individualities and patterns.
Lewis and Neal ( 2005 ; 437 ) defend the multicultural point of view, suggesting that the turning unfavorable judgment of multiculturalism reflects a re-embracing of old assimilation policies. Pilkington ( 2008 ) nevertheless defends multiculturalism distinguishing between a ‘moderate ‘ and ‘radical ‘ impression of multiculturalism. A moderate construct recognises and accommodates minority individualities in tandem with policies that promote national individuality, whereas a extremist construct concludes it is unneeded for policies to hold this overarching national individuality. Pilkington farther inquiries multiculturalism as the root cause of extremism observing that France, holding rejected multiculturalism, still high degrees of racial tenseness. Modood ( 2005:2 ) in a similar vena argues that ‘multiculturalism is still an attractive and worthwhile political undertaking ‘ traveling every bit far as to state suggesting that there is a greater demand for multiculturalism. This is because Modood sees multiculturalism as a manner of guaranting integrating, in complete resistance to the parallel lives discourse in a procedure of ‘mutual adjustment ‘ , reflecting a more moderate construct of multiculturalism, a position shared by Gilroy ( 2004 ) . In amount, holding examined the multi-faceted nature of multiculturalism, it is important to analyze the thought of community coherence to find both similarities and differences between the two.
2.3 Community coherence
Mentions to societal coherence were frequent in New Labour rhetoric before 2001, and went manus in manus with societal exclusion ( Fairclough, 2011:51 ) . However after the 2001 public violences and the subsequent Cantle ( Home Office 2001a ) and Denham studies ( Home Office 2001b ) brought frontward the impression of ‘community coherence ‘ .
Like multiculturalism, community coherence has been deemed an equivocal term, with confusion about what the term really amounts to. Lowndes and Thorpe ( 2011:518 ) propose three manners of community coherence: communitarian, republican and neoliberal and suggest that authorization ‘s method of community coherence will utilize changing grades of each manner. The communitarian manner focuses chiefly on community coherence in footings of shared values, with the focal point on the private domain and edifice person ‘s sense of belonging. The republican manner is in contrast more focussed on the populace domain and is pursued through active citizenship and engagement in local political relations. The neoliberal manner is concerned chiefly with societal inclusion with coherence being generated through economic agencies. Similarly, merely as there are difficult and soft manners of multiculturalism, there are ‘hard ‘ and ‘soft ‘ versions of community coherence ( Wetherall, Lafleche and Berkeley, 2007 ) . A ‘hard ‘ definition puts community coherence and multiculturalism per se at dunces and claims the demand to abandon the sensed divisiveness evident in multiculturalism. What is alternatively advocated is a new focal point on the attachment to British values ; nevertheless this has been accused of switching into the assimilationist values of the 1960 ‘s ( Worley 2005 ; Bourne, 2007 ; Cheong et al 2007 ) . A ‘soft ‘ version sees community coherence as complementing multiculturalism suggesting that these new community coherence policies portion similarities with the old multicultural attacks ( Kaur-Stubbs, 2008:34 ) .
Criticism of community coherence tends to portray a displacement back to assimilationist ideals, reflective of contradictory New Labour policy which attempts to battle racism whilst taking peculiar steps to guarantee good dealingss ( Back et Al, 2002 ; Gill and Worley, 2013 ) . Pilkington ( 2008 ) describes the community coherence docket as the de-prioritisation of equality with other critics suggesting that it seeks to ‘rid the state of difference ‘ ( Burnett and Whyte, 2004 ; Lewis and Neal ; 2005:437 ) . The demand for immigrants to larn English, citizenship texts and concentrate on ‘forced matrimony ‘ reflects these assimilationist attacks ( Thomas and Sanderson, 2012 ) . The premiss behind community coherence has beTHe community cvohesion agendaen accused of being of being ‘remarkably simplistic ‘ in faulting the events of 2001 on communities entirely due to a deficiency of interaction ( Burnett, 2007:116 ) . This could be partly because the coverage of the perturbations in 2001 did non concentrate on the triggers of the events but were alternatively portrayed as an accident waiting to go on ( Thomas, 2007 ) . Burnett farther suggests that since 2001, community coherence has become the dominant discourse in race dealingss policy, with multiculturalism going the floging male child in these new arguments, a sentiment echoed by others ( Worely ; 2005 ; Fortier, 2010 ) . Community coherence suggests that cultural diverseness is accepted within the boundaries of a national belonging and individuality defined by ‘strict bounds on the diverseness of values ( Burnett, 2007 ) . Robinson ( 2005 ) furthers this implying that while local studies focused on want and societal marginalization, the official studies maintained the representation of the perturbations as an ‘Asian job ‘ . However there has been a big sum of unfavorable judgment for such point of views, for illustration Lawrence and Heath ( 2008 ) in carry oning an analysis of the factors act uponing community coherence found that cultural diverseness on the whole was positively associated with community coherence.
The timing of the publicity of community coherence was critical, with some faculty members suggesting community coherence buys into a clime of fear amongst policy shapers and the ‘collective pessimism ‘ of urban theoreticians ensuing a sensed crisis of societal coherence ( Robinson 2005:1415 ) . Academicians have pointed to the disintegration of societal gum ; which binds society together due to denationalization and globalization ( Castells, 1996 ; Fukuyama, 1999 ) , proposing Robinson ‘s ideas may be right.
Whilst much of the literature began with a portraiture of the public violences, there was a important spread in the literature with respects to the relationship between community coherence and want. Whilst in the framing of the riots wants is frequently cited as a factor ( Cantle, 2001 ; Denham, 2001 ) , really small attending is paid to the nexus between poorness and coherence in general literature with most of the focal point being on different communities ( Donogue, 2013 ) . Whilst clarifying the general subjects of community coherence and multiculturalism is of import, it will be necessary to size up the assorted facets that make up community coherence such as citizenship, segregation and integrating and societal capital.
Components of community coherence
The first constituent of community coherence that is imperative to take out is the contested impression of the ‘community ‘ . There have been assorted unfavorable judgments of the fuzzed nature of community coherence with Walker ( 2004 ) proposing that societal coherence is linked to the every bit equivocal thought of ‘community ‘ , and Owen ( 2013 ) labelling it as a ‘nebulous ‘ construct. Partially this is due to the equivocal construct of a community itself, which needs to be treated with cautiousness and attention ( Bauman, 2001 ) , and hence this reappraisal will clarify in more item what precisely a ‘community ‘ is. Taylor ( 2011:45 ) efforts to trap down the debatable term and pull on Butcher ( 1993 ) and Purdue et Al ( 2000 ) to place three senses in which the construct of ‘community ‘ is used:
Descriptive: A group or web of people who portion something in common or interact with each other ;
Normative: A topographic point where solidarity, engagement and coherency are found ;
Instrumental: ( a ) An agent moving to keep or alter its fortunes ; ( B ) The location or orientation of services and policy intercessions
Politicians and policy shapers frequently mix together descriptive and normative significances of community ( Taylor et al 2011:50 ) , and this is apparent in community coherence discourse. They assume that commonalty in location or involvements will convey with them societal and moral coherence, and common trust. Crucially, they further presume that norms will be turned into action: that is, that community can be turned into bureau with people who live in the same topographic point caring for each other, acquiring involved in corporate endeavors, and activities and moving together to alter their fortunes. Additionally, the usage of ‘community ‘ in discourse of ‘community coherence ‘ has specific effects for believing approximately race. Indeed mentions to ‘community ‘ negate the usage of racialised linguistic communication even though it may be clear who is being referred to ( Worley, 2005:488 ) .
In Britain, articulations of community have differed dramatically dependent on political context. For illustration between 1945-1968 community was seen as a natural societal formation and was non at the point the topic of authorities policy ; nevertheless, between 1978 and 1990 due to the political displacement and the coming of neoliberalism community was seen as a negative, potentially impeding the development of an enterprise civilization, the benefits of which would ‘trickle down ‘ to all people ( MacLeavy, 2008:543 ) . Communities under the Third Way have been portrayed non merely as a geographical infinite, but besides a moral infinite through which individualities are constructed ( Rose, 1999:172 ) . This is brooding of a communitarian ideal in which focuses on the regeneration of persons in communities through shared values and active citizenship. Therefore the invariably altering impression of the community will hold effects of the significance and application of community coherence.
Community coherence places a great importance on integrating and segregation, with coherence about going a equivalent word for integrating ( Fortier, 2010 ) . Historically, as with multiculturalism significance of integrating has differed depending the political context ( Robinson 2005 ) ; for illustration Roy Jenkins ( Home Secretary in 1966 ) declared integrating as ‘equal chance, accompanied by cultural diverseness ‘ in an ambiance of common tolerance ‘ . This position is exemplifying of epoch of multiculturalism, a theoretical account which was premised on the impression of public and private cultural spheres ( Modood and Mahamdallie, 2011 ) .
In the zenith of community coherence, integrating has become seen as a ‘duty rediscovered ‘ ( Pilkington, 2008 ) . The studies published in the wake of the 2001 public violences placed great accent on residential segregation in metropoliss between people of different ethnicities, disregarding what Robinson ( 2005 ) suggests to be a far more complex and variable state of affairs. This principle led to the problematisation of cultural groups ‘retreating into comfort zones ‘ seen as the cause of urban agitation ( Ouseley Report, 2001 ) . Particularly problematised is ‘self-segregation ‘ , the accusal that certain cultural groups, in peculiar the south Asiatic population have contributed towards high degrees of segregation in many metropoliss ( Robinson, 2005 ) .
However, the focal point on segregation has come under a batch of unfavorable judgment, chiefly because segregation has fixated strictly on cultural groups, non between those of different societal categories and besides due to a peculiar focal point being placed on Muslim groups ( Kalra and Kapoor, 2009 ; Thomas and Sanderson, 2012 ; Ratcliffe, 2012 ) . Finney and Simpson ( 2009 ) show that Muslims in Bradford and Oldham are less spatially segregated than Indians in Leicester, bespeaking that it is n’t simply segregation that leads to tenseness and proposing excessively much importance is placed on segregation. This overemphasis on segregation serves to befog the category divisions and racialised inequalities that cause this ; deviating attending from institutional favoritism and the politicisation of race to this racialised discreteness ( Phillips, 2006:38 ; Saggar et Al, 2012 )
In explicating the public violences it is besides necessary to size up theories associating to reach between people of different backgrounds. A theory for ill will between different groups is provided by Social Identity Theory. This suggests that people seek to deduce positive self-identity from their group rank ( Brown 1988 ) , and view the group as qualitatively different from the sum sum of all the persons consisting it ( Suleiman 2004:326 ) . Tajfel and Turner ( 1979 ) were the first to develop Social Identity Theory which was originally developed to explicate the psychological footing for intergroup favoritism. The theory denotes that people do n’t merely hold a individual individuality but several egos that correspond to broadening circles of group rank ( Turner et al, 1987 ) . Different societal contexts may trip an person to believe, experience and move on the footing of his personal, household or national degree of ego. The cardinal point here is the person ‘s self-perception, which to be accurate requires a high grade of self-awareness will in world still trust on some signifier of external categorization or classification as many lack accurate self-perception. Persons view the group as an entity that is ‘qualitatively different ‘ from the amount of those persons who make up the group ( Suleiman, 2004 ) , taking people to overstate intergroup differences and intragroup similarities ( Jackson, 1996 ) . This is cardinal to community coherence and interculturalism as it helps to explicate why explicate why persons act in the manner they do.
Another theory derived from Social Identity Theory is Intergroup Contact Theory which posits that that contact between different racial groups reduces negative intergroup pigeonholing ( Robinson, 2005 ) . Initially developed by Allport ( 1954 ) and more late developed by Putnam ( 2000 ) and Hewstone ( 2007 ; 2009 ) it is an of import construct which helps to explicate the footing of community coherence. Contact Theory goes farther to sketch certain conditions which are neccessary to obtain good effects from intergroup contact: equal position, common ends, intergroup cooperation, the support of governments and personal interaction ( Allport, 1954 ) . Furthermore, more recent research places a high accent on intergroup friendly relationships ( Wright et al. , 1997 ) and suggests that in countries with small cultural and racial integrating, conceive ofing intergroup contact may even better attitudes between groups ( Crisp & A ; Turner, 2009 ) . Therefore, from research presented here it can be argued that policy-makers and community leaders should hold a clear apprehension of theory to be better equip to work towards organizing cohesive communities
One of the cardinal subjects of the community coherence docket is citizenship. Citizenship in Britain has gained renewed focus peculiarly since the early 2000 ‘s due to the perceived crisis of citizenship ( Wills, 2009 ; Bryne, 2012:533 ) . This crisis is perceived to be due to urban public violences, urban segregation, lower vote turnouts and the sensed support for hawkish Islam ( Wills, 2009 ) . This reading of citizenship merely additions credibleness when multiculturalism is seen as making separate individualities ( Khan, 2007 ) . This has led to the mainstreaming of citizenship into instruction, the debut of the citizenship study in 2001 and citizenship ceremonials being established in 2004. With respects to in-migration, appliers are expected to go through a citizenship trial, to demo they are more educated about Britain than its current occupants ( Isin and Turner 2007:11 ) . However there is disagreement as to the way that these citizenship discourses are inclusive or excepting with inquiries being raised about at what point immigrants are seen as British. For illustration, ‘we welcome you ‘ discourses at citizenship ceremonials reflect how immigrants are non seen as British ( Bryne, 2012:540 ) . Consequently, critics propose these ‘common values ‘ are non inclusive ( Meer, Dwyer and Modood 2010:92 ; Kymlicka,2011:281 ) . A farther failing of the citizenship docket is that it is ne’er really substantiated what these common values that create citizenship may be, for illustration it could merely be a committedness to the jurisprudence, or fond regard to a peculiar topographic point ( Brah, 2007 ) . These common rules cardinal to citizenship hold been accused of puting more rights and duties on single citizens, symbolic of an of all time more neoliberal signifier of administration ( MacLeavy, 2008:542 ) .
This is thought to be symbolic of a displacement to the logic of conditionality of New Labour ( Donogue, 2013 ) . This logic of conditionality promotes the thought that something must be earned instead than being an automatic right, and promotes duties over rights, promoted by Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith ( McGhee, 2009 ; Donague, 2013 ) . This is reflected by the publicity of active citizenship. Central to active citizenship is the focal point on duties as it promotes persons engagement in communities, switching the duty from the province to the person ( Cheong et al, 2007 ) . The accent on active citizenship increased post-7/7 with renewed accent on trueness, responsibility and duties replacing Blunketts advocation of civic assimilation ( McGhee, 2009:43 ) . There has been an increased focal point on citizenship in the community coherence docket, as one of the ways coherence has been thought to be achieved is through the publicity of shared values and duty ( Wills, 2009 ; Fortier, 2010 ; Cantle, 2012 ) .
Active citizenship could be seen to stand for Foucauldian bio-politics ; in that these countries of public policy in which the province efforts to modulate the behavior of topics as a population and as persons are frequently legitimised by the province as an effort to maximize the security and prosperity of the state as a whole. This is exemplified by statements such as Gordon Brown ‘s who suggested that going a British citizens should non be a affair of the appliers pick but should depend on their ability to actively come in a contract with Britain whereby they accept the duties of being a British citizen and thereby ‘earn ‘ the right to be British citizen.
Last, the right type of societal capital has been peculiarly stressed as being built-in to accomplishing community coherence. The original definition of community coherence based on Forrest and Kearns ( 2000 ) , viewed societal coherence as being founded on societal capital, and therefore is a thought cardinal to community coherence ( Cheong et al, 2007 ) . This construct is most normally associated with Robert Putnam ( Taylor 2011 ; Cantle 2012 ) , who described societal capital as ‘networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to move together more efficaciously to prosecute shared aims ; ( Putnam 1993:664-5 ) . Literature by and large differentiates between three signifiers of societal capital being bridging, bonding and associating societal capital ( Fieldhouse 2008:24 ) . Adhering societal capital describes closer connexions between people and is characterised by strong bonds between household members or among members of the same cultural group. It is good for ‘getting by ‘ in life, and is seen as inward looking. On the other manus, bridging societal capital describes more distant connexions between people and is characterised by more cross-cutting ties, for illustration, with concern associates, familiarities, friends from different cultural groups, friends of friends. It is good for ‘getting in front ‘ in life, and is seen as most utile in conveying societal coherence ( Fieldhouse, 2008:24 ) . Finally, associating societal capital refers to connexions with people in places of power and is characterised by dealingss between those within a hierarchy where there are differing beds of power. It is different from adhering and bridging as it is concerned with dealingss between people who are non on equal terms ( Taylor 2011:55 ) . Therefore community coherence appears to stand for a problematisation of inordinate ‘bonding ‘ societal capital and promotes the demand for greater ‘bridging ‘ societal capital ( McGhee, 2003 ) . Built-in in this is that old policy attacks of multiculturalism which focal point on anti-racism have essentialised cultural individualities at the disbursal of more complex impressions of being and belonging ( Thomas, 2007 ) .
Social capital is non a construct that is free of unfavorable judgment despite its popularity. For illustration Bourdieu ( 1977 ) , one of the taking theoreticians of societal capital implies that it both derives from, and causes, societal and cultural inequalities as it is privileged groups who have entree to societal capital which like all capital has material value ( Fieldhouse, 2008:25 ) . Furthermore, Hero ( 2007 ) , composing on cultural diverseness in the US, critiques the position that diverseness is linked to lesser political results, and societal capital to higher political results. Hero critiques Putnam ‘s ( 2000 ) Bowling Entirely, suggesting that it fails to pay adequate attending to inequality amongst cultural minorities that may explicate diverseness being linked with lower societal capital.. McGhee ( 2003 ) proposes that Putnam ‘s Social Capital Theory can be seen to be nearing a ‘problematization of habitus ‘ . Bourdieu ( 1977:214 ) , habitus can be defined as a system of temperaments that influence ways of being ; in peculiar sensitivities, leanings and dispositions. Therefore societal capital is symbolic of much of the unfavorable judgment of community coherence as it could be accused of debaring the focal point off from structural inequalities to the person and single communities ( Thomas and Sanderson 2012 ; Donogue, 2013 ) .