Segregated Britain. Farhaan Wali
Читать онлайн книгу.
shared ethno-religious experience. Thus, second-generation Muslims are socialised within a distinct ethno-religious identity in the enclave, which may foster segregation.
In order to understand the impact segregation has had on Muslim communities at a local and national level requires examining how it takes root at an individual and communal level. For this reason, extensive fieldwork has been conducted across Britain to help untangle Muslim segregation, ideally to the extent that the singular and collective identities of Muslims can be understood. If we divide Muslim segregation into two simple categories, the individual and the group aspect, then, in theory, one might be able to determine the relationship between individual and enclave segregation. To make this distinction clearer, consider the following example. The ethnic identity among young British Pakistanis represents the knowledge, values and emotion attached to membership of an ethnic minority group that has its origins in Pakistan.
Similarly, the religious identity relates to membership of the Muslim minority in Britain and the global Ummah [Muslim Nation]. The process of categorising themselves in line with their social identities (e.g. Muslim, Pakistani and so on) places them within an in-group to which ←25 | 26→they internalise that group membership as an aspect of their identity. After being categorised with group membership, they seek to achieve positive and negative value connotations, as to differentiate their in-group from a comparison out-group (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). This search for positive distinctiveness shapes the individual’s sense of identity. However, this can lead to conflict; Muslims who attach greater significance and meaning to their religious, cultural identity may struggle with the national culture. Segregation may relate to people who choose to live collectively in an area dominated by their cultural group, as economic reality may trigger preferences. The question remains, how adequate is segregation as a description of Muslim social life in Britain.
Although, segregation can be framed in multiple ways, the vast majority of theories tended to fall into one of three categories: those concerned with the reasons for spatial segregation (Loyd et al., 2015; Hershkovitz, 1981); those concerned with how structural segregation functions (Krysan and Crowder, 2017; Trounstine, 2018; Martin, 2006); and those concerned with the effects of segregation on identity (Hale, 2010; Mckeown, 2013). However, any generalisation must be tentative, as the above categories must be seen as fluid and shifting. To begin with, spatial segregation relates to where people reside, focusing on the socio-demographics of residential patterns (Hershkovitz, 1981). This can be explored through an array of demographic factors, such as household income and ethnic group. In contrast, structural segregation relates to institutional patterns of society like employment and education (Trounstine, 2018). These structural forces can shape patterns of social interaction, creating segregation along socio-economic lines.
These approaches are useful to understand how social mobility can reduce patterns of residential segregation. The early migration of the Jewish community in the East End of London, for instance, illustrates that ethnic enclaves can be temporary. In particular, the Jews who settled in the East End during the nineteenth century were discriminated against and were subject to restrictions on the housing they could obtain (Tananbaum, 2015). Their segregation declined gradually as they gained social mobility upward and subsequently moved to more affluent areas across London. Why, one may ask, have Bangladeshi Muslims in the East End not gradually ←26 | 27→progressed as the Jewish community managed? It seems the experiences of both communities are not similar. Firstly, Bangladeshi immigrants arrived in large numbers, which rapidly altered and challenged the demographic makeup of the East End. In simple terms, the white English population felt threatened by the ethnic population shift and thus racist abuse became a common occurrence for early Bangladeshi immigrants. The overtly racist response to their presence pushed early immigrants to seek refuge amongst their community. The evidence for this strategy has been attested to by the personal narratives collected from early immigrants in Chapter 1.
Today, ethnic segregation in the East End has not precipitously declined; instead, it seemingly has solidified and increased since the arrival of the first generation of Bangladeshi immigrants. According to Kantrowitz (cited in Peach et al., p. 46), referring to the American context, ethnic segregation exists and has progressively increased. He believes the only disagreement connected to segregation relates to its causes (ibid., p. 46). A wide range of academics appears to support this claim that ethnic segregation has increased access to many major US cities (Kantrowitz, 1979; Hawley, 1994). Although these cited works are dated, they have been reinforced by more contemporary studies, which have supported the increase in ethnic segregation in the US (Iceland and Weinberg, 2002; Crowder, 2017). This shift in attitude towards segregation, namely that it has increased, is a significant move away from Park’s assimilationist model (1969). The idea immigrants would initially settle in small clusters and then merge into the larger community after conflict does not appear to be occurring amongst Muslim communities in the UK (Park, 1969, p. 737). Park (1969) did acknowledge that the early formation of ethnic enclaves takes place from a commonality of race, culture and language. When these ties begin to weaken, some immigrants seek to integrate into the dominant culture, gaining economic advantage. This change in social status did occur among the Jewish community in the East End, but Bangladeshi Muslims have not replicated this. Despite gaining economic stability, the majority of the residents in the East End appeared reluctant to move away from the area. Instead, the residents have chosen to deepen their segregation from the wider society, as the so-called enclave gives them an opportunity to preserve their religious and ethnic identities. It became evident that respondents felt ←27 | 28→the East End is a social space that embodies a set of distinct cultural values and norms. Thus, segregation in the East End seemed to be occurring on the cultural level.
Cultural Segregation
The debate concerning segregation in modern Britain can be discussed from multiple perspectives, and so this study will focus mainly on the social and cultural strand of segregation. The reason for this is simple; cultural segregation is not a condition solely rampant among the working class. The phenomenon of cultural segregation can be equally prevalent among middle-class British Muslims (Wali, 2013). Moreover, in urban settings, residential development and growth will often result in some form of income-based segregation. This preferred form of economic segregation is usually triggered by upward or downward class mobility, which creates differentiated social groups based on class. The East End of London, for instance, has seen periodic waves of migration as each group gained upward mobility, their residential preferences changed. Conversely, economic deprivation can constrain social movement, upholding class-based segregation in large urban areas. Indeed, this economic reality is persistent in everyday life within most major urban centres around the country, so what makes Muslim segregation different?
The socio-cultural component of Muslim segregation is highly complex in nature and appears to be the primary ignition point for separation. As Schelling (2006) noted several decades ago, people often seek out the familiar; they prefer to ‘live with their own type’. In Britain, it is clear that Muslims stand visibly apart in terms of cultural practices (e.g. cuisine, language and dress), but these variations are a natural fabric of multiculturalism. The state does not expect newly arriving migrants to negate their social histories, which often stretch back for centuries. Today there is a growing expectation that Muslims, despite their distinct cultural beliefs and practices, should be moulded into a national image of ‘Britishness’. In order to bring about this collective identity requires directly interfering at the cultural level with a community seeking its identity standpoint. As ←28 | 29→we know, British Muslims cannot opt out of the economic structures, as these place constraints upon economic activity and are centrally governed.
The state is naturally reluctant to encroach on the public space, where culture in society is formed continuously and remoulded. It is within this neutral space that a cultural line has been drawn between Muslims and non-Muslims in British society. Du Bois (1899), commenting on the state of American segregation over a hundred years ago, described the creation of a similar boundary related to race. The ‘colour line’, as he put it, strengthened the widening gap between white and black. In Britain, Muslim migrants have added a new cultural dimension to the social landscape, but have they engineered a cultural point of separation? This book seeks to determine whether this cultural line is imagined or real. Race-related