British Asian narratives of urban space

Trans Inst Br Geogr

NS 32 217–234 2007ISSN 0020-2754 © 2007 The Authors.

Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

British Asian narratives of urban space

Deborah Phillips*, Cathy Davis** and Peter Ratcliffe†

Ethnic segregation is at the centre of debates about ‘race’ and ‘difference’, integration and citizenship in multicultural Britain. This paper critically examines discourses of segregation and challenges interpretations based on cultural ‘otherness’, normative assumptions about patterns of social and spatial integration and the ‘whiteness’ of the city. Drawing on research in Leeds and Bradford, the paper presents insights into how British Asians perceive, and make sense of, the spaces in which they are living and through which they are being enjoined to disperse. Their narratives of the city reveal multiple readings of ethnic segregation, the multi-ethnic inner city and the suburbs.

key words

Leeds Bradford British Asians ethnic segregation

urban narratives multicultural Britain

*School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT email: [email protected] **School of Environment & Life Sciences, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT †Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL

revised manuscript received 11 December 2006

Introduction

Recent events have thrust the issue of ethnicsegregation into the centre of public debates about‘race’ and ‘difference’ in multicultural Britain.Outbreaks of social unrest in some northern citiesin 2001, the on-going ‘war on terror’, the Londonbombings in July 2005 coupled with the head of theCommission for Racial Equality’s (Phillips T 2005)assertion that Britain seems to be ‘sleepwalking’ itsway towards American-style ghettos; all haveprompted a racialized political discourse on urbansegregation through which minority ethnic clustering,but not white clustering, has been constructed asproblematic and a hindrance to ‘communitycohesion’. This discourse has converged withwider debates about immigration and asylum, theessence of Britishness (Runnymede Trust 2000) andthe merits of multiculturalism (Lewis and Neil2005) to expose the apparent limits of multiculturalcitizenship, belonging and living with difference intwenty-first-century Britain. Anxieties have beenexpressed in popular and political discourses aboutthe potentially divisive effects of cultural andreligious difference in particular (Ratcliffe 2004).The social and spatial integration of people ofSouth Asian origin, and especially British Muslims,has been a special focus for debate following

claims that there is a tendency for these groupsto ‘self-segregate’ and withdraw from fullparticipation in British civil society (CommunityCohesion Review Team 2001; Bradford RaceReview Team 2001).

Much has been written about the measurement,dynamics and forces for minority ethnic segrega-tion in Britain and elsewhere (see Huttman 1991;van Kempen and Ozuekren 1998; Phillips 1998;Goldberg 1998; Dunn 1998; Johnston

et al.

2002).There is a rich literature debating the validity ofparticular statistical indicators for measuring levelsof segregation (e.g. Peach 1996; Simpson 2004 2005;Johnston

et al

. 2005), the salience of minority ethnicchoices, constraints and the power of individualagency versus institutional discrimination andstructural racism in shaping the uneven geo-graphies of ethnic settlement within cities (see Sarre

et al

. 1989; Ratcliffe 1996; Phillips 1998 for a review ofthe debates). The long association between minor-ity ethnic clustering, urban poverty and housingdeprivation has also been well documented (Davis

et al

. 1993; Modood

et al

. 1997; Somerville andSteele 2002; Harrison and Phillips 2003). The mean-ing of persistent ethnic segregation in multiculturalBritain is, however, less certain. The dominant politicaldiscourse on segregation, as enshrined for examplein the documents published by the Community

218

Deborah Phillips et al.

Trans Inst Br Geogr

NS 32 217–234 2007ISSN 0020-2754 © 2007 The Authors.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Cohesion Review Team (2001) and Panel (2004), isfounded on normative assumptions about paths ofminority ethnic social and spatial integration and ataken-for-granted ‘whiteness’ of many city spaces.This perspective underpins the government’spolicy commitment to ‘breaking down segregation’(Community Cohesion Panel 2004, 17) as a route tostrengthening citizenship and national identity,amongst British Asians in particular, throughgreater community cohesion, integration and corevalues. There is, however, a lack of well-groundedresearch into how British Asians perceive, andmake sense of, the cities and the spaces in whichthey are living and through which they are beingenjoined to disperse.

This paper thus re-examines the geographies ofethnic segregation through the eyes of people ofIndian, Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi ori-gin, drawing on research conducted in the cities ofLeeds and Bradford. It presents insights into theway in which the city is imagined, understood andexperienced by British Asians,

1

explores the mean-ings associated with this and draws out the impli-cations of people’s narratives of urban space fortheir decisions on where to live. Our findingsreveal that despite recent concerns about entrenchedethnic segregation, the geographies of British Asiansettlement are beginning to change in quite signi-ficant ways, most notably through the growingtrend towards suburbanization and residentialmixing. This enables us to challenge the over-simplified and essentialized representations ofBritish Asian preferences for inner-city clusteringpresented in reports following the 2001 disturbancesand subsequent government reviews of communitycohesion.

The paper begins with a critical look at represen-tations of minority ethnic segregation in multi-cultural Britain and goes on to examine the ways inwhich British Asians living in Leeds and Bradfordsee their cities and perceive their neighbourhoodand housing options. The research findings drawon household interviews

2

(using closed and openquestions) with 435 British Asians living in innercity and suburban areas, 12 depth interviews(involving return visits to people who were in theprocess of moving from the inner city to the outerareas) and 18 focus groups, organized by age-group, gender and religion. The research was con-ducted over a three-year period (2000–2003) usinginterviewers recruited from the local communities.Interviewees were, as far as possible, ethnically

matched with the interviewer and were given achoice of being interviewed in English or theirmother tongue. Semi-structured interviews withhousing institution managers and the focus groupswere conducted by the authors (occasionally withthe help of an interpreter).

The accounts or narratives of the city presentedby British Asians reveal the complexity and diver-sity of their housing and neighbourhood percep-tions, aspirations and experiences, and shed lighton their different representations of urban space.Their local experiences and imaginings both reflectand contribute to their understanding of them-selves and their place(s) in relation to family,neighbours and location in the city. More gener-ally, these understandings contribute in differentways to wider ethnic group relations and providemotivation for more active (or less active) involve-ment in voluntary and public activities, employ-ment (formal and informal) and, ultimately,patterns of exclusion or inclusion. Part of the storyis optimistic: we are able to offer a more positiveview of minority ethnic groups and where they livethan emerges in much of the discussion aboutminority ethnic segregation and polarization inmulticultural Britain. However, it is also evidentthat a continuing racialization of space circum-scribes opportunities and mobility for many BritishAsians, especially British Muslims. This has impli-cations for their rights of access to, and use of,space within the multicultural city, though againthe understandings, experiences and opportunitiesdiffer between ethnic groups in complex ways.

Representations of minority ethnic segregation in multicultural Britain

Despite the recent backlash against ‘multiculturalism’,as a political and policy objective (Mitchell 2004;Lewis and Neal 2005), senior politicians still describeBritain as a ‘multicultural’ nation (for example, seeKelly 2006). This was clearly evident in theimmediate aftermath of the London bombings,when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and theMayor of London, Ken Livingstone, referred to theevents of 7/7 as an attack on our ‘multiculturalsociety’. Spaces for cultural difference may thus beacknowledged in twenty-first-century Britain, butthey appear to be circumscribed by concerns aboutthe meaning of being British, possibilities fornational unity in the face of difference and issuesof security. In this section, we argue that the


219

Trans Inst Br Geogr



political discourse surrounding minority ethnicsegregation highlights the anxieties associated withhow to (and whether to) incorporate cultural andreligious difference, and rests on normative assumptionsabout the social and spatial trajectories of minorityethnic groups as they integrate into civil society.

Political interest in ethnic segregation in Britishcities, which had remained dormant for twodecades, was re-awakened in 2001, following a seriesof disturbances in several northern towns. Thedisturbances were attributed to tensions and mis-understandings arising from the so-called ‘parallellives’ led by segregated British Asians and whites.The London bombings and security alerts implicat-ing the British Muslim population gave greaterurgency to questions about national unity, corevalues, and ‘home-grown terrorism’ and its possibleroots. Again, rightly or wrongly, ethnic segregationwas seen as a reflection of, and contributor to, thechallenges of living with ‘difference’ in multi-cultural Britain. The dominant political discourse intwenty-first-century Britain thus represents minor-ity ethnic segregation within inner-city areas as aproblem, deserving of particular policy attention.Persistent clustering over the generations is seen asindicative of an unwillingness to assimilate and toreproduce (as well as reflect) ‘cultural otherness’,to threaten cohesion and to undermine nationhood(Amin 2002; Phillips 2006a).

Representations of minority ethnic clustering asa problem were evident in some academic and policyanalyses in the 1990s (for a critique see Ballard 1997),but they emerged as a central tenet of the reportsinto the northern disturbances and policy initiativeson community cohesion (Harrison

et al.

2005).Recent interest in area-based and neighbourhood-oriented policy interventions serves to illustratethis. The thrust of the National Strategy for Neighbour-hood Renewal (Social Exclusion Unit 1998), forexample, and government initiatives targetinggeographically concentrated social exclusion haveaccentuated the pathological characteristics ofdeprived inner areas and have frequently por-trayed ethnic minorities (amongst others) as ‘vic-tims’ rather than purposeful agents exercisingchoices, albeit often ones that are heavily con-strained. The more positive aspects of minority eth-nic clustering, namely, the social and culturalcapital inherent in supportive social networks, andthe better health and well-being associated withcommunity support in otherwise deprived innerurban areas (Smaje 1995), tend to receive less attention.

Representations of minority ethnic areas as declin-ing, as sites of ‘social exclusion’ (Sibley 1995) andeven as threatening (Bonnett 2002) (possibly evenmore so following the London bombings) haveserved to reinforce pathological stereotypes ofminority ethnic groups and their ways of living.

Despite extensive evidence of the associationbetween inner-city clustering and minority ethnicdeprivation, post-2001 political and policy dis-courses on ethnic segregation have tended to high-light the cultural/religious differences betweenBritish Asians and whites at the expense of pos-sible institutional or structural constraints uponminority ethnic dispersal. References to BritishAsian ‘self-segregation’ have placed disproportion-ate blame on minority ethnic groups for theirapparent failure to integrate (Phillips 2006a). AsAlexander (2002) and Housee and Sharma (1999)have argued, there has long been a tendency toboth essentialize and pathologize the lifestyles andreligions of people of South Asian origin in Britain.Media and popular discourses have all too oftenportrayed these cultures as backward, tradition-bound, anachronistic and potentially hostile tomainstream (white) British values (Poole 2002;McGhee 2005). Such images have gained greatercurrency since 2001. British Muslims in particularhave been openly vilified, but by association, otherBritish Asians are also sometimes depicted asinward-looking ‘others’. Recent ethnographic workby post-structuralist scholars has done much to de-construct the essentialized identities of people ofSouth Asian heritage, to emphasize the contextualityof difference and document the diversity of experi-ences of national and transnational belonging (e.g.Alexander 2000; Dwyer 2000; Nayak 2003; Modood2005; Hussain and Bagguley 2005). However, thishas yet to impinge significantly on wider debatesabout Britishness and community cohesion or toinform thinking in national or local policy spheres.

While it is important to acknowledge that ‘multi-culturalism’ has many different meanings, eachwith different implications for minority ethnicrights and citizenship (see Kymlicka 1995; Hesse2000; Hall 2000; Mitchell 2004), the political anxietyexpressed about ethnic segregation in Britain sug-gests that multiculturalism has not significantlyremade the social and political landscape of nation-hood and belonging (Back

et al.

2002), nor has itradically re-constructed the way our city spaces areread and imagined by many white people. Whitesegregation within schools, suburbs and the growing

220


Trans Inst Br Geogr


number of gated communities in multiculturalBritain continues to be taken for granted and is seenas normal (Bonnett 2000). Thus, following Amin(2002), it may be argued that whiteness, and itsattendant privileges, remains inscribed in the city,produced and reproduced by institutional, socialand cultural practices, and political discourseswhich expose the ‘(white) ethnic moorings ofnational belonging’ (Amin 2002, 977). The inequali-ties and exclusions associated with these practicesand discourse play a powerful role in shapingpeople’s engagement with institutions, experiences(anticipated and real) of particular neighbour-hoods, streets or public spaces, and help to shapeperceived opportunities, entitlements and sense ofbelonging. The ‘othering’ implicit in whiteness isdifferentiated across ethnic groups and, as Alexan-der (2002) and Nayak (2003) have explored, theadvantages accruing to whites vary considerablyby class, age, lifestyle, ethnicity and locality. Never-theless, the historical and contemporary mean-ings associated with whiteness are embedded inthe racialization of urban space and generally havethe capacity to secure white privilege within thecity; in the words of Amin and Thrift (2002, 297),‘power by default’.

Multicultural Leeds and Bradford: the research context

Our analysis of multicultural Leeds and Bradfordbegins with a synopsis of the evolving geographiesof British Asian residence in the two cities and thengoes on to examine narratives of urban space.People of Pakistani origin dominate the BritishAsian population in both cities, although therelative sizes of these predominantly Muslimminorities differ. Bradford, according to the 2001Census, has a Muslim population, mainly ofPakistani, Kashmiri or Bangladeshi origin, of justover 75 000; 16 per cent of Bradford’s totalpopulation. Smaller groups of Indian Sikhs andHindus make up most of the remainder ofBradford’s 88 400 people of Asian descent. Leeds’British Asian population is smaller at 32 290, andconstitutes only 4.5 per cent of its total population.Nearly 22 000 are British Muslims, mainly ofPakistani origin.

Leeds and Bradford are cities with sharply con-trasting fortunes. This has played a role in shapingthe differing class structures of the two cities, indetermining housing affordability and in shaping

the context in which racialized local politics andresentment (as expressed through racist harass-ment and inter-ethnic tensions) over the competi-tion for jobs and welfare resources has been playedout. Leeds’ diversified economy has been booming,presenting a wide range of opportunities foreconomic advancement for those with skills. Thiscontrasts with Bradford’s recent experience ofdeindustrialization and economic decline, whichhas brought high unemployment, especiallyamongst Bradford’s youthful British Asian popula-tion. These economic differences are inevitablyreflected in the buoyancy of the local housingmarkets: while the average price for a three-bedroomed house in Leeds at the time of the researchwas £101 427, it was £60 000 in Bradford.

Despite these important differences, our researchrevealed a number of commonalities in the chang-ing geographies of British Asian residence in thetwo cities. There were also similarities in the viewsexpressed on ‘community’, feelings of belonging,residential mobility and ethnic mixing. BritishAsian perceptions of different urban spaces werenevertheless varied and were sometimes contested.Variations in the accounts of urban space reflectedthe diversity within this population (along the linesof social class, generation, gender, faith and cul-tural attachment) that might be replicated else-where in multicultural Britain, as well as localdifferences within Leeds and Bradford.

Spatial polarization in Leeds and Bradford?

The changing geographies of British Asianresidence in Leeds and Bradford were documentedthrough a comparison of 1981–2001 census data andan analysis of names and addresses on the 1995–2000 Registers of Electors for the two cities. Thelatter permitted a fine spatial analysis (to streetlevel) of the changing geographies of religiousgroups (data on religion were not available in thecensus until 2001). The data revealed severalspatial trends; ethnic clustering (both within theinner areas and beyond), short-distance movementwithin and just beyond established minority ethnicneighbourhoods, and suburbanization (for a moredetailed analysis see Rees

et al.

1995; Stillwell andPhillips 2006). The main inner ethnic clusters,which were established in the early period of post-war immigration to the cities, have continued togrow over time. These distinctive clusters coincide


221

Trans Inst Br Geogr



with Harehills, Beeston and the University/HydePark area in Leeds (see Figures 1–3) and withManningham (Toller and University wards), LittleHorton and Bradford Moor in Bradford (seeFigures 4–6). There is a strong association betweenthis residential concentration and urban decline forsome groups. For example, 80 per cent of BritishMuslims in Bradford and 60 per cent of Muslims inLeeds live within some of the poorest urban areasin these cities.

The consolidation of British Asian residencewithin inner Leeds and Bradford has been associ-ated with a relatively high rate of demographicgrowth amongst the British Asian population and acontinuing loss of white households from theseareas. This changing ethnic composition has oftenbeen referred to in a sensationalist fashion as‘white flight’, although Simpson (2004 2005) hasargued that the transition reflects population changesassociated with the different demographic profilesof the British Asian and white groups as much aswhite out-migration (i.e. the combined effects ofa high birth-rate and new household formation

amongst this relatively youthful population, andpopulation loss, through mobility and death,amongst an ageing white population). However,some British Asians we interviewed clearlybelieved that white families would leave once peopleof Asian heritage started to move into an area:

When I bought the house in this area (Bradford 9),there was a good balance of English and Asian families.The English moved out slowly afterwards. I think theyhave a very sheltered view of the Pakistani communityand don’t want to get to know them. It’s a shame. Iwould prefer to live with people with a varied culturalbackground. British Pakistani woman, 36, Bradford

Some Asians like to move to good white areas, but assoon as a few Asians start to live there, the whitesmove out, so it ends up being an Asian area. BritishPakistani man, 46, Bradford

The picture of growing ethnic clusters in innerLeeds and Bradford might at first appear toprovide substance to the discourse of ethnicpolarization prevalent after the 2001 disturbances.This would not, however, be an accurate reading of

Figure 1 British Muslim households in Leeds, 2000

222


Trans Inst Br Geogr


the data. A closer analysis of the changing geographicaldistributions reveals several important countervailingtrends.

First, the growth in British Asian clusteringwithin inner areas has been mainly associated withfamilies of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. Whilepeople of Indian origin are living in, and stillopting to move into, the central ‘community areas’,the trend towards Indian suburbanization has beenevident for more than 20 years (cf. Ballard andBallard 1977).

Second, although suburbanization is clearlymuch more developed amongst those of Indianorigin, the shape of British Muslim (Pakistani andBangladeshi) space in both cities is also beginningto change. Just over a fifth (22 per cent) of Leeds’British Asian Muslims now live in the outer urbanareas as do 10 per cent of the Muslims in Bradford.

3

This would seem to run counter to the image pre-sented by the Home Office of a self-segregated,inward-looking British Muslim population (HomeOffice 2001, 10).

Third, statistical measures of segregation indi-cate that, despite popular perceptions, levels ofethnic segregation in Bradford have not increasedover the last decade and in Leeds they havedeclined.

4

There is some intense physical segrega-tion in localized areas in both cities, with somestreets predominantly British Asian. However,there was also considerable ethnic diversity acrossthe areas labelled as ‘Asian’. For example, BritishAsians only make up 57 per cent of the householdsin University ward (Manningham). Meanwhile,Diversity Indices for Leeds indicate that the innerareas are much more ethnically diverse than therest of the city. The greatest ethnic segregation (i.e.white) occurs on the periphery of the city

5

(Stillwelland Phillips 2006).

There are still parts of Leeds and Bradford whereBritish Asians are relatively under-represented oreven absent (see Figures 1–6). These include higherstatus, suburban areas of owner-occupied housing(in the north-west areas of Leeds and Bradford inparticular), and peripheral social housing estates of

Figure 2 British Sikh households in Leeds, 2000


223

Trans Inst Br Geogr



mixed quality. The trend towards minority ethnicsuburbanization has undoubtedly started to erodethe racialized division of private housing space.Weakening segregation is less evident, however, inthe social rented sector, where, in any event, BritishAsians are poorly represented. These unevenspatial distributions cannot simply be ascribed to‘self-segregation’ by this group. Rather, we wouldargue, it reflects a combination of factors, includinga strong expressed preference for home ownership(as in the general population), past discrimination,which has steered British Asians into particularareas of the city (Burney 1967; Law 1996; Ratcliffe

et al.

2001) and a continuing fear of racism and vio-lence, particularly in localities perceived as ‘white’.

British Asian settlement in Leeds and Bradford isin transition. Inner-city clustering is still a domi-nant feature of the pattern, but new geographiesare emerging. These embody different and some-times competing representations of urban space.Narratives of community, social capital, belongingand exclusions shed light on the forces underlying

the reproduction of the inner-city clusters and thestretching of distinctly British Asian space into thetraditionally ‘white’ suburbs. Increasing residentialproximity between ethnic groups is not of coursenecessarily associated with social interaction, anymore than residential segregation implies the exist-ence of ‘parallel lives’. The patterns neverthelesssuggest that the discourse on ethnic polarization inmulticultural Britain has been oversimplified. Thefindings thus invite a more critical understandingof the links between social and spatial mixing andthe meaning of ethnic clustering.


Community spaces: valuing community and social capital

In common with many other British cities, earlypost-war migrants to Leeds and Bradford fromIndia, Pakistan and Bangladesh settled in thepoorer inner-city areas. This geography was

Figure 3 British Hindu households in Leeds, 2000

224


Trans Inst Br Geogr


shaped by the availability of cheap housing,proximity to work and the presence of othermigrant households. Today, after three generationsof settlement, the presence of other British Asians,and in particular those from a similar cultural/religious background, is still an importantdimension of the housing decisionmaking processfor many. Three-quarters of our intervieweesacknowledged that, in general, British Asianfamilies prefer to live in areas where there are atleast some other people of South Asian heritage.Well-established inner-city community areas, suchas Harehills in Leeds and Manningham inBradford, were cited, but so too were the newlyemerging suburban British Asian spaces, such asMoortown in Leeds. Younger British Indians wereespecially likely to incorporate parts of the suburbsinto their vision of ethnic spaces.

The social, cultural and practical benefits of resi-dential clustering were widely recognized, althoughsome people represented the densely populatedinner areas in more ambivalent terms than others.For the most part, interviewees recognized the

continuing importance of ‘community’ spaces, whichwere seen to engender feelings of familiarity, secu-rity and support. These give access to amenities,facilitate religious and cultural observance and,importantly, enhance a sense of belonging. Justover 70 per cent of households in inner Leeds andBradford had other people they regarded as family(including close family acquaintances referred to asaunts, uncles, cousins etc.) living within walkingdistance. These networks were often used foreveryday support and socializing. Some also hadlong-established connections with their neighbours.For some residents, particularly those originatingfrom Pakistan or Bangladesh, these close inter-connections still evoked images of ‘village’ com-munities. The meanings associated with the ‘village’were, however, contested. For older intervieweesand more recent migrants in particular, the villageatmosphere might be highly valued for the feelingsof comfort, security and belonging it can bring. Asone older Bangladeshi man living in inner Leedssimply stated, ‘I will go on living here as this com-munity is like my village in Bangladesh’

.

Similar

Figure 4 British Muslim households in Bradford, 2000


225

Trans Inst Br Geogr



sentiments were expressed by a man of Pakistaniorigin (48) living in Manningham, Bradford, whojustified his choice in terms of safety and commu-nity, explaining ‘we are safe here and . . . also theneeds of life are fulfilled’.

Other interviewees, however, felt that the ‘vil-lage’, and the close social networks and gossipassociated with it, were overly constraining. OneBritish-born young woman of Bangladeshi origin(23) explained why she wanted to move away:

He [her father] wanted me to buy a house in thiscommunity and the reason he gave was that it’s like avillage, and that’s the very reason why I don’t want tobuy a house in this community . . . because everyoneknows your business.

Hence, while the pull of the inner-city cluster isstrong for many, some of the younger intervieweesin particular felt ambivalent or negative about thelifestyle of the closely-knit community, theopportunities it affords and the problems it maybring. Focus group discussions with young menand women of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in

Bradford allowed us to explore these issuesfurther. While recent migrants with limited Englishconveyed little desire to move very far from thesupport of their family or the community, youngBritish-born Asians expressed a wider range ofviews. Some young women felt that to live in theheart of the community would compromise theirprivacy and independence, so their preference wasto maintain a distance, but to live ‘not too faraway’. Thus some favoured moving to the edge ofthe established community space. Their accounts ofliving in the community were constructed in termsof competing narratives of the desire for familyand community support, family commitments andobligations, the quest for greater freedom, andperceived constraints on them as individuals. Thewomen felt that their lives were under greaterscrutiny from family and others than those ofyoung men. The desire to exercise more controlover the day-to-day running of their homes and tobreak away from some of the strictures of culturaltradition was expressed by some. Generationaldifferences were highlighted:

Figure 5 British Sikh households in Bradford, 2000

226


Trans Inst Br Geogr


They (older people) are living to the culture . . . culturedictates how their life style is . . . I was born in thiscountry, I’ve been brought up in this country, I’ve hadall my education in this country. I don’t want theculture to dictate how I am to live my life. BritishBangladeshi woman, 23, Bradford

For example, the expectation that families livingwithin the ‘village’ community would maintain an‘open house’ was resisted by some younger British-born women because of the demands it placed onthem. As one respondent put it, ‘It’s nice (to havevisitors) . . . but not all the time’

.

Another youngBritish Bangladeshi woman (21) explained howmoving to the outskirts of the Manninghamcommunity had enabled her to think of her homeas a private space (where she could be herself)rather than a semi-public domain:

I don’t have to be presentable all the time, I can put onjeans and a tee-shirt [rather than a shalwar kameez] . . .my house doesn’t have to be vacuumed all the time.

Thus, moving to the margins of the community spacenot only gave some young people access to better

housing, but also permitted some flexibility in relationto cultural norms. This extended to conventionsrelating to life-style (e.g. dress, social interaction),the use of domestic space and the conduct of genderrelations in the home. One young British Bangladeshiwoman (24) explained that, in the inner areas,where she felt that there was constant scrutiny,

it is very difficult to be your own person. For instanceyou can’t stay in with your husband and watchtelevision, or you can’t get close to him because it’ssomething that’s taboo in our culture.

Some women thus regarded spatial relocation asdesirable and empowering, bringing them (andtheir daughters) greater independence whenentertaining and socializing, undertaking paidwork or entering higher education. This desire foroutward movement from the ethnic cluster runscounter to the discourse of ‘self-segregation’.

Narratives of mobility and differentiation

Although the inner-city community spaces clearlyremain important, many interviewees (71 per cent)

Figure 6 British Hindu households in Bradford, 2000


227

Trans Inst Br Geogr



acknowledged that British Asians, especiallyyounger people, would gradually move furtheroutwards into more ethnically mixedneighbourhoods. This trend is most clearlymanifest in the suburbanization process. Multi-generational households as well as youngerfamilies have been motivated to move by theiraspiration for better housing, schools andneighbourhoods, and the desire for more privacyand independence. Of the 157 families interviewedwho had migrated from inner city to suburbanLeeds and Bradford, 50 per cent said they hadmoved, at least in part, because of the problemsassociated with inner area decline (e.g. drugs,crime, environmental neglect, poor amenities etc.).

Nearly all of those recognizing suburbanizationas an important and continuing process citedgrowing class differences as a key driver of thischange (for example, 23 out of 24 of the intervieweesliving in outer Bradford cited this as a reasonfor growing suburbanization here). As one LeedsBangladeshi (52) observed

The middle class (Asians) like to move to posh areas,partly to escape from the children (that) pick up badhabits in working class areas.

For some, the move was an important means ofestablishing a social as well as a physical distancefrom less educated families in the inner areas. As amale teacher of Pakistani origin (42) living in outerBradford bluntly put it ‘We moved here knowingthat (Asian and white) undesirables would not beable to afford a house here’

.

Another professionallyqualified respondent (40) declared that ‘in thecircles we move in, we prefer to move to areaswhere less Asian people (live)’. Others articulatedtheir reasons for moving in terms of improvementsin life-style and life-chances and increasedopportunities for mixing with families from otherethnic groups. Significantly, while the ‘parallellives’ discourse has promoted images of BritishAsian self-segregation, isolationism, and social andcivic disengagement, our research indicated awillingness and, amongst some, a preference forgreater social integration. Although there wereworries about victimization and rejection, two-thirds of those interviewed said they would, inprinciple, be happy to live in areas where therewas a greater mix of British Asian and whitefamilies, so long as they felt safe. While thiswillingness was more strongly expressed amongstyounger people, it was evident across all religious/

ethnic groups. As a British Indian businessman (42)living in suburban Leeds put it:

Personally, I would not like to live in an area with adense Asian population. Neither would I like to live inan all white area. I would prefer some Asian familiesand generally a balanced community.

The lack of appeal of ‘all white areas’ waswidespread, because of a fear of harassment,racism and isolation. One young British Pakistani(21) expressed the commonly held view thatincreasing class differentiation would bringoutward movement, but that choice of area wouldbe circumscribed by ethnic mix:

They (Pakistanis) will probably not move to a strictlywhite area. As you earn more you want to move into abetter area, but will always look for an ethnic or Asian mix.

Narratives of increasing social and spatialdifferentiation amongst British Asians thusemerged in both cities

.

The growing trend towardssuburbanization was seen as both indicative andconstitutive of this process. While some of ourinterviewees had never had, or wished to loosen,associations with the families or communityorganizations based in inner Leeds and Bradford,many others spoke of the significance of theircontinuing connections. For many, narratives ofcommunity were not just associated with the inner‘community areas’, but stretched across differenturban spaces from the inner city to the suburbs.Two-thirds of respondents in outer areas said thatthey still visited people or facilities (shops, mosques)in the centre. One British Pakistani man (45)involved in the process of moving out of Harehillsto the north Leeds suburbs spoke of his family’sambivalence about their ethnic community space:

We decided to move because of the inner-city area,because of the deprivation . . . There’s a lot of problemsassociated with it – drugs, crime, things like that –some things that we wanted to get far enough awayfrom, yet still have links with the community . . . As faras the family’s concerned, access (to Harehills) wasimportant . . . they need to have the links to thefacilities, because there is a lot of good within thiscommunity. There’s a hell of a lot of good but there’salso a lot of bad.

Narratives of deprivation and decline thus stoodalongside positive representations of the innerethnic clusters. While up to a fifth of inner-cityinterviewees in areas like Harehills could findnothing bad to say about their area, many others

228


Trans Inst Br Geogr


lamented the physical degeneration of theirneighbourhoods and growing social problems. Forexample, one older woman who had lived in inner-city Beeston (Leeds) for 30 years recognized theimpetus for outwards movement, commenting:

It is getting worse day by day. Unemployed youngpeople (are) walking round the street all day long, notgoing to school, college or university, putting on loudmusic on the car stereo and taking drugs . . . Mydaughters think that . . . it is better for them to be awayfrom these people. They have moved away from here.British Bangladeshi woman, 64, Leeds

Similar observations were made in Bradford,where, for example, one 45-year-old inner-cityresident of Pakistani origin remarked how somepeople were leaving the central neighbourhoodbecause ‘they are fed up with their local areaswhich are dirty, noisy, undisciplined’

.

Much of the outward movement in Leeds andBradford can be explained by increasing purchasingpower associated with achievements in the labourmarket, particularly through inter-generationaloccupational mobility. Some larger families hadmanaged to move by drawing on more thantwo incomes from less well paid jobs, but mostsuburbanizing households had family membersin professional or managerial employment. How-ever, socio-spatial differentiation on the basis ofclass is far from complete. Not all middle-classBritish Asians aspired to a home in the suburbs.For some, the problems associated with the innerethnic community areas were simply outweighedby the perceived benefits of community living.They also worried about possible isolation and racistharassment in the suburbs. This was especiallytrue for multi-generational households where theneeds and independence of older members inparticular might be undermined by a move to areasdistant from community facilities. The decision tomove into more expensive housing in the affluentsuburbs was also resisted on religious grounds bysome (but not all) British Muslim families, whopreferred not to display their wealth through con-spicuous consumption. Representations of thesuburbs, or gentrified inner areas, as a normalizedmiddle-class aspiration do not therefore hold thesame meaning for all.

Narratives of exclusion and bounded choices

Inevitably, some households, and indeed someyoung people who wanted to move away from the

family home, faced highly bounded choices, whichlimited their housing options to the inner areas.The nature of this constraint is important torecognize given that political and media discourseson British Asian ‘self-segregation’ haveemphasized, if at times only by implication, thepreference of these citizens for separate andinward-looking lives. Narratives of exclusion andbounded choices emerged in many British Asianaccounts of the city and in their associated housingdecisions. Key obstacles to mobility includedpoverty, institutional exclusion, racist harassmentand feeling out of place in certain city spaces.

Given the strong preference amongst BritishAsians for home-ownership (nationally, 76 per centof British Indian and 67 per cent of Pakistanihouseholds own their home), options for purchas-ing beyond the inner areas are constrained by bothdisposable income and the widening gap betweeninner-city and suburban prices, especially inLeeds.

6

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in both citiesare particularly disadvantaged by low incomes andhigh levels of unemployment (Husband 2000;Ratcliffe

et al.

2001; Stillwell and Phillips 2006). Ourresearch uncovered a number of cases where multi-earner households had circumvented the barriersto mobility, but low incomes and the remittanceobligations of some transnational families stillpresent difficulties for households wanting tomove to more expensive, better quality housing. Asa British Asian community development worker inSouth Leeds commented:

A lot of (Asian) people here (Beeston) are unemployedand they have large families. Where else could you finda 4–5 bedroomed house for £35 000?

Concerns about housing affordability and the senseof being trapped by economic circumstances camethrough strongly in focus groups with youngpeople in Bradford. As one young man of Pakistaniorigin said, ‘They (Pakistanis) tend to talk about it(moving), but they can’t really do anything aboutit’. Young people recognized that social housinghad a role to play, but felt that their options in thissector were limited by unsuitable housing andinsensitive housing practices. Their reading ofsocial housing spaces was often negative, withmany references being made to racist harassment,drugs, prostitution and the bad reputation ofcertain estates.

Past explanations for continuing patterns ofminority ethnic clustering in poorer inner areas


229

Trans Inst Br Geogr



have highlighted the role of housing institutions inthe racialization of urban space (Phillips 1998;Ratcliffe 2004). Our research suggests that BritishAsian households still make their housing andneighbourhood decisions within a framework ofracialized constraints. For example, although therehave been many initiatives to improve the socialhousing choices of minority ethnic householdsover the years, many policies have been under-pinned by stereotypes of minority ethnic (and inparticular British Asian) people as resistant to theidea of living away from inner areas associatedwith ‘their’ communities (Phillips and Unsworth2002; Ratcliffe

et al

. 2001). Stereotyping such as this,which is implicit in institutional decisionmaking indifferent ways, has served to reinforce patterns ofethnic segregation.

Findings from our research on the private hous-ing sector suggest that lending institutions andestate agents now take a less ‘exclusionary’ attitudeto borrowers, buyers and localities than in the past.Nevertheless, a survey of estate agents highlighteda familiar pattern of ethnic stereotyping, acknow-ledgement of vendor discrimination, a racializationof space and anecdotal evidence of ‘steering’ bysome agents. There was also a perception of un-equal treatment amongst some British Asian clientsand denial of rights of access to certain parts of thecity. One British Pakistani man (45) in the processof moving to the suburbs of Leeds described thevariable nature of his encounters with estateagents:

Some of them dealt with us reasonably well. Some ofthem didn’t. . . . Reasonable to me is treating me likethey value my custom. . . . Some estate agents, youdidn’t get that feeling – well like, you know, ‘here wehave a brown individual and they’re probably notserious’ or whatever . . . Just because someone is from aminority group it doesn’t necessarily mean that theydon’t have the means to pay for it.

A British Muslim woman (46), who had made themove to suburban Leeds, also felt that BritishAsian access to the suburbs was shaped by estateagents. She was of the opinion that ‘Asian peoplehave been channelled to certain areas’ and that it is‘very difficult to buy houses in these types of areas(the suburbs)’.

Institutionalized assumptions about the classposition of British Asian families and their ‘place’in the city may thus hamper the efforts of thoseaspiring to move to the suburbs. Other families,

with no plans to move, spoke of the limitationsimposed by the need for access to places of wor-ship and other minority ethnic organizations,which are predominantly located in the innerareas. Increased personal mobility through carownership has loosened the physical ties of spatialproximity, although it has also increased thedependency of some household members (espe-cially women and the elderly) on those who candrive. As one young Bradford Muslim woman (25)observed:

You can’t really move that far if you want yourchildren to actually be brought up religiously, that’s themain restriction for most people I think . . . especially ifyou haven’t got any transport.

As Gale and Naylor (2002) have highlighted,disputes commonly arise over the siting anddesign of ethnic community facilities as minorityreligious groups lay claim to new city spaces. InLeeds, attempts to extend Islamic space into thesuburbs through the construction of mosques andmadrassas (Muslim schools) had been unsuccessful.Some blamed failed planning applications onperceived exclusionary practices by the Jewishpopulation in a desirable northern suburb.

Finally, the inner ethnic areas were not only seenas community spaces but as places of safety. Nar-ratives of security incorporated multiple meanings.They commonly embodied a sense of comfort andbelonging engendered through community mem-bership, but they were also expressed in defensiveterms, especially for those who imagined the outercity areas as places of exclusion, racism and abuse.Some interviewees justified their decision to livewithin the inner city by saying ‘it’s not a racistarea’, ‘we are safe’ or ‘there is no racism’, and threeout of four people identified certain areas of Leedsand Bradford that British Asians might avoid.These included ‘rough’ areas, especially councilestates (cited by 64 per cent of interviewees) andneighbourhoods that were perceived to be ‘allwhite’; white working-class areas in particularwere thought to be ‘out of bounds’ to them.

Worries about racist harassment continue tolimit British Asian people’s rights of access to, anduse of, the city. Fifteen per cent of those inter-viewed said that they had experienced harassmentin their current neighbourhood, even though theyhad opted to live in areas they perceived to be safe.Although white working-class areas were mostlikely to be avoided, ‘respectable’ middle-class

230


Trans Inst Br Geogr


spaces were also viewed with caution. Interviewees’accounts signify claims and counterclaims tothe city’s spaces. Some early pioneers of the whitesuburbs recounted experiences of victimization,with one British Indian woman (59) recalling howeggs, bottles and stones were thrown at her housebecause ‘we were the only Asians in the area’. Fearof victimization was even more widespread andemerged as an important thread binding accountsof perceived exclusion from parts of the city.Women, particularly Muslims, felt especially vul-nerable when walking in public spaces, comment-ing that ‘you get hassled’, ‘targeted’, ‘picked on’.One British Pakistani Muslim woman (47) in innerLeeds observed the perceived difficulty associatedwith crossing from ‘Asian’ to ‘white’ space:

white and Jewish people, they don’t like it when Asianor black people move into their areas. My sister is livingin a white high class area where she is facing this problem.

An elderly Indian lady, commenting on theexperiences of younger Sikh people moving tothe suburbs, believed it was not worth either thepersonal or the economic risk:

In some (suburban) areas, some have suffered abusefrom whites throwing bricks . . . They get troubled afterspending so much money.

The passage to the suburbs was believed to beeasier for families where cultural ‘difference’ wasprivatized.

The impact of harassment on housing decisions,which serves to re-inscribe the ‘whiteness’ of thecity, is also illustrated by other studies. For exam-ple, Third

et al.

(1997) and Bowes and Sim (2002)found that some minority ethnic households inScotland were willing to sacrifice better qualityhousing to achieve greater security from harass-ment. Similarly, Chahal and Julienne (1999) havedocumented the widespread experience of racistvictimization across England, and the particularchallenges of living in ‘white areas’. Most BritishAsian families adopt ways of coping with everydaythreats, but this may well restrict their personallives. In Leeds and Bradford, the sentiments ofanxiety and exclusion expressed by those worriedabout their safety in the suburbs or other ‘whiteareas’ stood in sharp contrast to the feelings ofbelonging associated with the less contested andmore secure spaces of the inner city.

Signs of ethnic and religious re-clustering withinsuburban spaces are now evident. This reflects

both the desire to perpetuate the ‘meaning’ andsocial practices of cultures as lifestyle, but also theneed to circumvent the social barriers evidentthrough cultural difference. Interviewees indicatedthat this was most significant at times of marriageand death, when religious traditions came intoplay, and at times of racial tension, when harass-ment might occur. In the early stages of movementinto predominantly white spaces, suburban or other-wise, the presence of any other ‘Asian face’ (irre-spective of religion or background) was often seenas desirable for overcoming a sense of isolation andreaffirming a belief in their rights to those parts ofthe city. Indeed for some people it was a prerequi-site for such a move.

Conclusion

Experiences and perceptions of urban space (realand imagined) play a role in understandings ofboth ‘self’ and ‘others’, sense of belonging andrights to space and other resources. We haveargued that this has implications for British Asians’sense of identity, feelings of belonging, inclusionand exclusion, whether this is at the scale of thefamily, the ‘community’ or the city. We would alsoargue that these local experiences haveimplications for attachments to the nation andbeyond. It is important to acknowledge that thenarratives presented here have in part been shapedby the specific contexts of Leeds and Bradford.Local histories, myths, economic structures,politics, cultures and urban and housing policiesmake up what Amin and Thrift have called the‘local micro-cultures of inclusion and exclusion’(2002, 291). All have helped to shape particularexpressions of distinctiveness, everydaynegotiations of difference, and access to spacesin Leeds and Bradford. However, the localexperiences and readings of places in thesenorthern cities are also likely to be interpretedagainst a backcloth of racially coded nationaldiscourses on segregation, community cohesion,integration, asylum and immigration and the ‘waron terror’. As such, the multiple readings of ethnicsegregation, of the multi-ethnic inner city and thesuburbs uncovered in our research haveresonances for multicultural Britain as a whole.

Age, gender, ethnicity/religion and wideningsocial class distinctions between British Asianshave all helped to shape the narratives of urbanspace presented here and influenced decisions


231

Trans Inst Br Geogr



about where to live. Different narratives competein the residential decisionmaking process; tensionsarise, for example, between household aspirationsfor improved housing and neighbourhood condi-tions, and the value placed on living close to theminority ethnic community with which they iden-tify. As a result, people with apparently similar cir-cumstances (e.g. stage in the life-cycle, social class,housing conditions) may make different ‘choices’,and the resolution of all family members’ prefer-ences may be far from complete.

We therefore wish to resist any attempts toessentialize British Asians’ reading of urban spaceor their preferences. Representations of the innerethnic areas were undoubtedly ambivalent and themeanings associated with particular places weresometimes contested. These areas neverthelesswere, for many, what Kearns and Parkinson havereferred to as ‘an arena of predictable encounter’(2001, 2106). This may seem more appealing thanthe uncertainty engendered by the possibility ofcultural rejection, isolation and harassment in otherareas. ‘Middle class’ suburbs and the lifestylesassociated with them may be a signifier of statusfor many white families, but their meaning may bevery different for some minority ethnic house-holds. Some British Asian women (particularlyMuslim women) and elderly household members,whose everyday lives may be particularly local-ized, find separation from the centralized areasassociated with their ethnic community very hard.Suburban living may increase their dependencyupon men in the family for mobility and socializ-ing, especially if racist harassment is perceived tobe a threat.

The contention, following the 2001 disturbances,that British Asian and white families in somenorthern towns seemed to be living ‘parallel lives’in different parts of the city was associated withdiscourses of failure, including the failure of BritishAsians to follow normative models of social andspatial integration, and the failure of multicultural-ism to promote common values and erase differ-ence. We would argue that there is a need to moveaway from this discourse and to re-conceptualizeminority ethnic clustering in a more balanced way.We thus call for greater acknowledgement of thefavourable attributes of clustering, the positivedecisions made by inner-city households and thebonding social capital invested in such areas, aswell as the exclusions and constraints that arefaced. This implies exposing the normality and

invisibility of whiteness in institutional practicesand political discourse (such as that on urbansegregation), dispelling the negative image of theethnic inner city as a transitional space andincorporating multi-ethnic inner areas into theimagined nation.

The call to re-conceptualize the multi-ethnicinner city as a space for inclusion in multi-ethnicBritain is not an argument for ignoring the associa-tion between minority ethnic clustering, depriva-tion and exclusion. Indeed, we would argue thatthe persistence of minority ethnic concentrationand segregation in deprived inner-city areas isindicative of societal failures, including structuraldisadvantages in the housing and job market andwithin the sphere of education, and the continuingracialization of space, through individual acts ofracist harassment, institutional practices and politi-cal decisions on investment and disinvestment inparticular parts of the city. British Asian house-holds in inner Leeds and Bradford were well awareof the poor physical and social conditions thatmany families endured because of a lack of econ-omic and political resources. As Bowes and Simargued in 2002, housing conditions and choices forlower-income households have barely improvedover the last decade because of reduced supportfor marginal home-owners, continuing high un-employment amongst Pakistanis and Bangladeshis,poor health, racist harassment and continuing diffi-culties of access to good quality social rentedaccommodation in areas where British Asianpeople want to live. Nevertheless, it is important tobreak away from the notions of social disintegra-tion and community disorganization depicted inmodels of inner-city decline and often perpetuatedin popular discourses about excluded inner-citypeople and spaces. It is evident that multi-ethnicinner areas can be vibrant social spaces, not justplaces of failure and decline. Our research revealedthat positive decisions are often made to locate, orto remain, within inner areas associated with theirminority ethnic community, although the agency ofsome family members and some households is alsolimited by financial strictures, institutional and cul-tural constraints as well as the public expressionsof racism which exclude British Asians from thefull rights associated with citizenship and belong-ing in multicultural Britain.

The physical and symbolic landscape of the multi-cultural city is slowly being remade in differentways. Evidence from successive censuses indicates

232


Trans Inst Br Geogr


that minority ethnic groups, especially those ofIndian heritage, are becoming increasingly sub-urbanized (Phillips D 2005), thereby calling intoquestion the essentialized view of British Asianarea preferences presented in recent discourses onsegregation. There is also a growing visibility ofminority ethnic groups and religious differencethrough ‘commercial multiculturalism’, as the‘exotic’ is commodified and ‘difference’ romanti-cized (Young

et al

. 2006). We also see more non-Christian places of worship being incorporatedinto commercial districts as some localities seek toreposition and sell themselves as multiculturalcities (Gale and Naylor 2002). The recognition andinclusion of ethnic difference through commercialmulticulturalism does little, however, to tackle theinequalities inherent in other forms of racializeddifference nor does it disrupt the social and spatialpower of racialized groups, which governs theirrights to access, to use and to shape particular cityspaces. As we saw in Leeds, there was resistance tothe incorporation of ethnic and religious differencein the white suburbs when British Muslims wishedto construct community facilities, and fear of racistharassment helps to maintain the whiteness ofnon-traditional spaces. Access to safe space is asignifier of inclusion and citizenship, whether weconceptualize this as rights to the neighbourhood,community centre, the home, or the right to walkdown the street without fear.

As more minority ethnic households (from bothestablished and new migrant groups) move intonew city spaces, ethnic divisions are likely to bechallenged, remade and re-imagined. The out-comes, however, may well be different in differentlocalities. In some places, movement into new(white) spaces beyond established ‘communityareas’ may bring resistance, white ‘flight’ and mayeven sensitize people to racialized divisions. Nega-tive encounters, or a feeling of isolation, mayprompt a return to the ethnic spaces of the innercity. More optimistically, however, our researchclearly indicated that suburbanization was accom-panied by a desire for more ethnic mixing by someBritish Asians. Other studies, across a range ofBritish cities, have pointed to an emerging cosmo-politanism and cultural hybridity in some neighbour-hoods, as young people in particular forgenew alliances and new forms of difference (Back1996; Alexander 2000; Nayak 2003; Keith 2005;Modood 2005). The intercultural experience will nodoubt vary over time and with context. It is too

soon, for example, to assess the long-term impactof the London bombings and high-profile securityalerts on ethnic relations, although popular andpolitical discourses surrounding these events havedone little to undermine constructions of (British)Muslims as ‘alien Other’. The migration and settle-ment of asylum seekers, refugees (many of whomare Muslim) and new labour migrants from the EUalso bring new challenges to the way in which ‘dif-ference’ is constructed in multicultural Britain. Theresponse from local residents (both minority ethnicand others) to the newcomers has been varied,although there is evidence that tensions are fuelledby material deprivation in reception areas andnewly reworked narratives of ‘non-belonging’(Phillips 2006b).

The shape and meaning of ‘multicultural space’,like multicultural Britain, is uncertain and con-tested. The findings of this research expose the fra-gility of the idea of a truly inclusive multiculturalcity. Minority ethnic segregation has been repre-sented as problematic, but, ironically, greater socialand spatial integration may be difficult to achievewhilst a process of racialization continues to setcertain British citizens apart.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded through an ESRCproject, entitled ‘Movement to Opportunity? SouthAsian Relocation in Northern Cities’ (awardnumber R000238038) and by the Housing Corpora-tion. The research assistance of Faisal Butt, RachaelUnsworth and a team of British Asian interviewersis gratefully acknowledged. The authors are alsoappreciative of the helpful comments of four anony-mous referees.

Notes

1 In referring to British Asians, we do not wish to implyan essentialized British Asian perspective. We presentdisaggregated data wherever possible and underlinethe salience of class, gender, age and ethnic/religiousdifferences in the findings.

2 It was not uncommon for interviews to last 2–3 hours.This provided rich and detailed insights into BritishAsian strategies in the negotiation of different spaceswithin the city.

3 The different levels of suburbanization in the twocities would seem to reflect the greater economic oppor-tunities available within the more buoyant economyof Leeds as well as differences in the resources and


233

Trans Inst Br Geogr



housing preferences of ethnic households living inLeeds and Bradford.

4 In Bradford, Indices of Segregation, measuring thedegree of separation between British Asian and non-Asian households within the city, did not changebetween 1991 and 2001 (Simpson 2004). On a scale of0–100, where higher values denote higher levels ofspatial separation, the indices were calculated at 59 forboth years at the ward scale, and 75 and 74 for 1991and 2001 respectively at the enumeration district level.In Leeds, segregation levels have, in fact, declinedover the past decade. Indices of Segregation calculatedat the ward scale for households of Pakistani originreduced from 62.6 per cent to 56.9 per cent, and forthose of Indian origin fell from 41.7 per cent to 38.1per cent (Stillwell and Phillips 2006).

5 For example, in 2001, the so-called ‘Asian area’ ofHarehills had a Diversity Index of 73 per cent (on a scaleof 0–100, where 100 per cent denotes high diversity).This compared with an index of 20 per cent for Leeds asa whole, and 5 per cent for its south-eastern periphery.

6 Halifax Building Society data for Leeds indicate thathouse prices in inner-city areas, such as Beeston, werestagnating at the beginning of the century, comparedwith suburban prices, which were increasing in linewith the national average.

References

Alexander

C

2000

The Asian gang

Berg, Oxford

Alexander

C

2002 Beyond black: rethinking the colour/culture divide

Ethnic and Racial Studies

25 552–71

Amin

A

2002 Ethnicity and the multi-cultural city: livingwith diversity

Environment and Planning A

34 959–80

Amin

A and Thrift

N

2002 Editorial: cities and ethnicities

Ethnicities

2 291–301

Back

L

1996

New ethnicities and urban culture

UCL Press,London

Back

L, Keith

M, Khan

A, Shukra

K and Solomos

J

2002The return of assimilationism: race, multiculturalismand New Labour

Sociological Research Online

7 (2) (http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/back.html) Accessed 25September 2006

Ballard

R

1997 The construction of a conceptual vision:‘ethnic groups’ and the 1991 UK census

Ethnic andRacial Studies

20 182–94

Ballard

R and Ballard

C 1977 The Sikhs: the developmentof South Asian settlements in Britain in Watson J edBetween two cultures Blackwell, Oxford

Bonnett A 2000 White identities: historical and internationalperspectives Prentice Hall, Harlow

Bonnett A 2002 The metropolis and white modernityEthnicities 2 349–66

Bowes A and Sim D 2002 Patterns of residential settle-ment amongst black and minority ethnic groups inSomerville P and Steele A eds Race, housing and socialexclusion Kingsley, London 40–60

Bradford Race Review Team 2001 Community pride notprejudice: making diversity work in Bradford BradfordMDC, Bradford

Burney E 1967 Housing on trial: a study of immigrants andlocal government Oxford University Press, Oxford

Chahal K and Julienne L 1999 ‘We can’t all be white’: racistvictimisation in the UK Joseph Rowntree Foundation,York

Community Cohesion Panel 2004 The end of parallel lives?The report of the community cohesion panel Home Office,London

Community Cohesion Review Team 2001 Communitycohesion: a report of the independent review team HomeOffice, London

Davis C and Salam S with Jones A and Paterson G 1993Black and Asian housing needs: Calderdale CharitableTrust of Housing Associations in West Yorkshire,Leeds

Dunn K 1998 Rethinking ethnic concentration: the case ofCabramatta, Sydney Urban Studies 35 503–27

Dwyer C 2000 Negotiating diasporic identities: youngBritish South Asian Muslim women Women’s StudiesInternational Forum 23 475–86

Gale R and Naylor S 2002 Religion, planning and thecity: the spatial politics of ethnic minority expression inBritish cities and towns Ethnicities 2 387–409

Goldberg D T 1998 The new segregation Race and Society1 15–32

Hall S 2000 The multicultural question in Hesse B ed Un/settled multiculturalisms: diasporas, entanglements, trans-ruptions Zed Books, London 209–41

Harrison M and Phillips D 2003 Housing and black andminority ethnic communities: review of the evidence baseOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister, London

Harrison M, Phillips D, Chahal K, Hunt L and Perry J2005 Housing, ‘race’ and community cohesion CharteredInstitute of Housing, London

Hesse B 2000 Un/settled multiculturalisms: diasporas, entangle-ments, transruptions Zed Books, London

Home Office 2001 Building cohesive communities StationeryOffice, London

Housee S and Sharma S 1999 ‘Too black, too strong’?Anti-racism and the making of South Asian politicalidentities in Britain in Jordan T and Lent A eds Storm-ing the millennium Lawrence and Wishart, London

Husband C 2000 Managing social cohesion and youngpeople’s entry into the labour market: final reportEconomic and Social Research Council, Swindon

Hussain Y and Bagguley P 2005 Citizenship ethnicity andidentity: British Pakistanis after the 2001 riots Sociology39 407–25

Huttman E 1991 Urban housing segregation of minorities inWestern Europe and the United States Duke UniversityPress, Durham NC

Johnston R, Forrest J and Poulsen M 2002 Are thereethnic enclaves/ghettos in English cities? Urban Studies29 591–618

234 Deborah Phillips et al.

Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 32 217–234 2007ISSN 0020-2754 © 2007 The Authors.Journal compilation © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2007

Johnston R, Poulsen M and Forrest J 2005 On themeasurement and meaning of residential segregation: aresponse to Simpson Urban Studies 42 1221–7

Kearns A and Parkinson M 2001 The significance ofneighbourhood Urban Studies 38 2103–10

Keith M 2005 After the cosmopolitan? Multicultural citiesand the future of racism Routledge, London

Kelly R (Member of Parliament) 2006 Speech launchingthe Commission on Integration and Cohesion 24August 2006 (http://www.dclg.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502280) Accessed 30 September 2006

Kymlicka W 1995 Multicultural citizenship Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford

Law I 1996 Racism, ethnicity and social policy Prentice Hall,London

Lewis G and Neal S 2005 Contemporary political con-texts, changing terrains and revisited discourses Ethnicand Racial Studies 28 423–44

McGhee D 2005 Intolerant Britain? Hate, citizenship and dif-ference Open University Press, Maidenhead

Mitchell C 2004 Geographies of identity: multiculturalismunplugged Progress in Human Geography 28 641–51

Modood T 2005 Multicultural politics: racism, ethnicityand Muslims in Britain Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh

Modood T and Berthoud R with Lakey J, Nazroo J,Smith P, Virdee S and Beishon S 1997 Ethnic minoritiesin Britain: diversity and disadvantage Policy Studies Insti-tute, London

Nayak A 2003 Race, place and globalization: youth cultures ina changing world Berg, Oxford

Peach C 1996 Does Britain have ghettoes? Transactions ofthe Institute of British Geographers NS 21 216–35

Phillips D 1998 Black minority ethnic concentration, seg-regation and dispersal in Britain Urban Studies 35 1681–702

Phillips D 2005 Housing achievements, diversity andconstraints in Harrison M, Phillips D, Chahal K, Hunt Land Perry J Housing, ‘race’ and community cohesion Char-tered Institute of Housing, London 32–61

Phillips D 2006a Parallel lives? Challenging discourses ofBritish Muslim self-segregation Environment and Plan-ning D: Society and Space 24 25–40

Phillips D 2006b Moving towards integration: the hous-ing of asylum seekers and refugees in Britain HousingStudies 21 539–53

Phillips D and Unsworth R 2002 Changing minorityethnic housing choices in the social rented sector inSomerville P and Steele A eds Race, housing and socialexclusion Kingsley, London 77–93

Phillips T 2005 Britain ‘sleepwalking to segregation’Guardian 19 September 1

Poole E 2002 Reporting Islam: media representations of BritishMuslims I. B. Tauris, London

Ratcliffe P 1996 ‘Race’ and housing in Bradford BradfordHousing Forum, Bradford

Ratcliffe P 2004 Race, ethnicity and difference: imagining theinclusive society Open University Press, Maidenhead

Ratcliffe P, Harrison M, Hogg R, Line R, Phillips D,Tomlins R and Power A 2001 Breaking the barriers:improving Asian access to social rented housing CharteredInstitute of Housing, London

Rees P, Phillips D and Medway D 1995 The socio-economic geography of ethnic groups in two northerncities Environment and Planning A 27 557–91

Runnymede Trust 2000 The future of multi-ethnic BritainProfile Books, London

Sarre P, Phillips D and Skellington R 1989 Ethnic minor-ity housing: explanations and policies Avebury, Aldershot

Sibley D 1995 Geographies of exclusion: society and differencein the west Routledge, London

Simpson L 2004 Statistics of racial segregation: measures,evidence and policy Urban Studies 41 661–81

Simpson L 2005 Population growth and diffusion inmulti-ethnic Britain, 1991–2001 and beyond Paperpresented to conference on Community Cohesion andthe Multi-ethnic Neighbourhood ESRC Centre forNeighbourhood Research, Bristol University (http://www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk/multi.html) Accessed1 August 2005

Smaje C 1995 Ethnic residential concentration and health:evidence for a positive effect? Policy and Politics 23 251–69

Social Exclusion Unit 1998 Bringing Britain together; anational strategy for neighbourhood renewal HMSO,London

Somerville P and Steele A eds 2002 Race, housing andsocial exclusion Kingsley, London

Stillwell J and Phillips D 2006 Diversity and change:understanding the ethnic geographies of Leeds Journalof Ethnic and Migration Studies 32 1131–52

Third H, Wainwright S and Pawson H 1997 Constraintand choice for minority ethnic home-owners in ScotlandScottish Homes, Edinburgh

van Kempen R and Ozuekren A 1998 Ethnic segregationin cities: new forms and explanations in a dynamicworld Urban Studies 35 1631–56

Young C, Diep M and Drabble S 2006 Living with differ-ence? The cosmopolitan city in urban reimaging inManchester, UK Urban Studies 43 1687–714

British Asian narratives of urban space

Documents

Transcript of British Asian narratives of urban space