Abstract
In July 2011, the British Sociological Association newsletter, “Network,” published several sociological responses to the 2011 riots in London. What was striking was that none of the writers had undertaken any empirical research into the motivations or beliefs of the rioters themselves. Was this a one-off omission? In his book Youth, Multiculturalism and Community Cohesion, Paul Thomas examines New Labour’s community cohesion policy that was introduced following the riots in Oldham, Burnley, and Bradford in the summer of 2001. Thomas’ central argument is that community cohesion agenda does not represent a knee-jerk assimilationist reversal against multiculturalism but rather, a progressive shift toward a new phase in multiculturalism that deals with the reality and complexity of modern diverse identities. In the absence of detailed empirical analysis, academic hostility to the policy has focused too restrictively on the meaning given to community cohesion in various government policy reports rather than actually examining how it operates in practice. Drawing on surveys and interviews in Oldham and Rochdale, the author attempts to assess just how ethno-racial tensions were constituted, experienced, and managed by young people and youth workers living and working in communities in the North of England, both prior to, and after, the introduction of the community cohesion policy.
New Labour’s shift away from a multicultural agenda, according to Thomas, followed its belief that multiculturalism fostered a one-sided concern with difference that ultimately led to ethnic clustering and residential segregation. Its remedy was the development of a community cohesion policy that emphasized the importance of commonality and nurtured “bridging social capital” between ethnic groups through a community cohesion program. In this New Labour was not alone, a similar strategic shift away from a multicultural policy agenda had taken place in France (although France had formally pursued a color-blind policy of republican citizenship, its policies of insertion and engaging with minority groups at the local authority level were for Thomas effectively akin to multicultural policies pursued elsewhere) and in the Netherlands. All three countries experienced a “white backlash” against multiculturalism because of its self-enclosing emphasis on difference. Thomas is careful, however, to criticize government, simplistic media, and populist portrayals of multiculturalism in all three of these countries and to argue that economic and class factors underpinning the ethnic conflicts were downplayed. In terms of the context for the U.K. riots for example, Oldham, Burnley, and Bradford all experienced significant de-industrialization, were characterized by high levels of poverty and unemployment, and displayed significant levels of ethnic residential clustering and segregation in housing and schools. These socio-economic conditions were conjoined with the rise of far-right groups, reactionary local media, and police harassment of ethnic groups. The latter ensued from a multi-cultural stress on difference that led to some especially marginalized sections of the white population feeling a sense of threat in their identities and sense of cultural security.
Thomas draws on interview data to argue that the community cohesion approach enjoys widespread, though qualified, support among youth workers and the youth they work with. By focusing on what groups have in common, the policy has enabled community workers to re-orient their practices toward fostering direct contacts between youth groups from different ethno-racial backgrounds, thereby creating a safe space for them to understand and respect each others’ culture. Such a process is underpinned by contact theory, a social psychological approach to conflict resolution sometimes used in Northern Ireland. Community cohesion allows youth workers to move away from narrowly focusing and managing reified ethnic identities to engage instead with broader forms of youth identification, yet simultaneously to work with distinct ethnic identities to foster commonalities through contact and develop overarching inclusive identities. Claims that multiculturalism has disappeared are unfounded—it has simply mutated.
Thomas challenges the view of politicians that the religious and national forms of identification of British Muslims leads to self-segregation. His data indicates that though religious identification is very important, many in fact see themselves as British. By contrast, sections of the white population who identify themselves largely in terms of Englishness and are averse to diversity are segregating themselves.
Thomas’ use of empirical evidence to question academic speculations about community cohesion is undoubtedly justified. Phenomenological or subjective accounts, especially when conjoined with objective and structural understanding are necessarily central to any sociological explanation. However, the book only vaguely describes the evidence it draws on. It is briefly stated that field research, which includes the experiences of youth and community workers and how they operationalize community cohesion, is to be consolidated with research on young people across Oldham and Rochdale about their experiences of segregation and feelings about identity and diversity. But no detailed information is provided on the numbers of respondents and what specific research methods or tools were used. This is a shame since the chapters quoting interviews are among the most interesting parts of the book.
Second, the book uncritically converts what Bourdieu calls “social problems into sociological problems.” Although Thomas outlines how issues of multiculturalism have been discussed in three European countries, there is no discussion of the contested nature and the sociogenesis of a number of key concepts: identity, cohesion, and community, for example. What is a community in this context? What are the factors underpinning group formation and modes of identification other than identity? Moreover, the statements of youth workers concerning community cohesion are often taken uncritically as if they entail a hotline to understanding these complex processes concerning domination, rather than being one group among others who have an interest-bearing interpretation of these ethno-racial conflicts.
Third, although the book acknowledges the rise of neo-liberalism and especially some of its economic effects, it fails to look at the political aspect of this process including New Labour’s “Third Way” policy which entailed the retrenchment of the state, an increasing reliance on the market, and tropes of individualism and agency, consumerism, and responsibility, and the increase in punitive and penal sanctions against poor and marginalized groups. The impacts of these economic-political processes on people’s subjectivities, modes of identification, and sense of citizenship and entitlement are not discussed.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the book fails to look at issues of power, and places too much importance on contact theory and reconciling oppositional norms and values as a remedy for ethno-racial conflicts. In their study of unequal community relations, The Established and the Outsiders (1965), Norbert Elias and John Scotson usefully argued that the conflictual relations between various community groupings are not a consequence of the characteristics of the groups themselves which can be based on various arbitrary criteria including values, skin color, and so on. Rather, it is the unequal power ratio between these groups, itself determined by the way they are bonded together, their different degrees of organization and cohesion that is of fundamental explanatory importance. When established groups felt exposed to an attack against their monopolized power resources, they used stigmatization and exclusion as weapons to maintain their distinct identity, assert their superiority, and keep outsiders in their place. Processes of social closure in terms of maintaining relatively privileged access to resources or status and power claims underpinning group formation are downplayed in Thomas’ account in favor of what are in fact secondary questions concerning different values and group misunderstandings which can be remedied through contact and mutual understanding.
Despite these criticisms the book has virtues. It is clearly written. It also questions the singular policy emphasis of academics on difference rather than commonality (though whether multiculturalism operated solely according to this principle in practice is not discussed) and that ethno-racial social processes need to be understood locally as well as nationally, and in terms of their actual practice rather than seen through an ideological lens. These insights are usefully extended in discussions of class, gender, and territory in ethno-racial relations among young people.