“Negotiating ‘Common Grounds’ Through Local Government and Urban Regeneration Policies and Initiatives; The Case of Hackney, London”
Penny Koutrolikou
Discussing Multiculturalism
“The rediscovery of ethnicity and cultural identities created an awareness of the need to cope with the management of ethnic and cultural diversity through policies which promote ethnic and cultural minority groups’ participation in, and access to the resources of society, while maintaining the unity of the country.” Inglis
Diversity is not a new phenomenon. However, the increased movement of people and ideas makes it more visible, and the existing inequalities and poverty along with rising tensions turn its management into a priority. By the end of Cold War, the adoption of Human Rights and the rise of identitarian claims for rights (ethnic, racial, religious, cultural) highlighted the rise of what was named ‘identity politics’ or ‘politics of difference’ and increased the visibility and struggles of differences. It also inspired the State’s need to respond, manage and control diversity as a potential trouble-maker. The rediscovery, or the regained visibility, of ethnicity and differences over the past decades has been accompanied by an increasing awareness among decision-makers for a need to develop policies and initiatives / projects that would contribute to the development of ‘harmonious’ relations between diverse ethnic and cultural groups. The concern for social control, cohesion and safety has brought the issue of diversity and difference into the spotlight – especially through issues regarding rights, equalities and racism.
As much as culture, nowadays multiculturalism has been a highly contested notion. The rise and recognition of identity politics, along with the recognition of the importance and benefits of ‘our creative diversity’ (UNESCO) and every day city life encountering – at least – several different groups and cultures brought forward several issues such as:
· Different power relation and inequalities between different groups.
· The potentiality of conflict, therefore the need to manage this – currently – visible and ‘confrontational’ diversity.
· Negotiating national and cultural identities over importance and prioritisation.
· Identifying the most effective – in reality less conflictual – mode of governance and governing.
In response to these questions, managing diversity has become a significant priority in order to benefit from its positive influence as well as to minimise and control the potential tensions and conflicts. In its political expression, managing diversity had mainly being pursued through the two dominant approaches towards integration; multiculturalism (in all its variations) and assimilation with a strong ongoing debate between the two (Ingis, McCArtney). Moreover, through the discussions around social exclusion, inclusion and poverty, the issue of managing diversity has transcended the realm of politics and entered strongly the realm of development.
Contemporary urban societies are perceived and advocated to be multicultural by nature or by choice. Although, as argued by Hall (Hesse, 2000), multicultural is very different from multiculturalism; the former meaning the diversity of cultures existing in a given space while the latter represents a policy tool for managing diversity formed through political ideologies.
“By definition a multicultural society consists of several cultures or cultural communities with their own distinct systems of meaning and significance and views on man and the world. It cannot therefore be adequately theorised from within the particular framework of any political doctrine which, being embedded in, and structurally biased towards, a particular cultural perspective, cannot do justice to others.” Parekh (2000)
The multicultural identity of cities entails the reality of cultural communities or groups sharing an existence in a given space. Their collective identities as well as their relations with others and with a social structure form the constantly changing collage of cultural diversity and the inherent relations and power-structures. Living with and managing diversity are processes of becoming that cannot offer a clearly defined future. The specific approach is not static but forms an ongoing process built upon negotiations and future possibilities, while also providing a public terrain for these to be able to take place if chosen to do so. As many (Amin 2001, Parekh 2000) argue, the point is not to eliminate conflict as such but to provide the access so that everybody can participate in the negotiations.
Multiculturalism can carry ideological and programmatic affiliations such as conservative, liberal, pluralist, commercial, corporate, critical, etc. (Hall, 2000). It can therefore be criticised by as many oppositional ideologies. In between ideologies and programmes, the multi-cultural character of societies has been confused – intentionally or not - with notions of multiculturalism, which seems to be the preferred word representing a way forward in the issue of managing diversity. Addressing multicultural needs and questions while promoting multiculturalism has been a motto in several contemporary policies and programmes. Although, the notion and practices behind each multiculturalism differ substantially.
Despite their differences, multicultural and multiculturalism have been closely related as associating notions as well as practices. The pluralistic and inclusive significations of multiculturalism work well with current agendas of inclusion and cohesion, representing the advocated inclusive society and realm. Perceived as a derivative of multiculturalism, multicultural policies, together with ‘politics of recognition’ have been related to the increased fragmentation and the decline of ‘mass’ movements arguing about collective stakes.
“If existing ‘multicultural policies’ are examined closely it can be seen that many of them implicitly ignore the unequal distribution of power and privilege and generate a range of self-perpetuating and self-renewing stereotypes. In their current definition, cultural diversity policies are often design to ‘protect and promote’ distinct cultural attributes, or various forms of ‘otherness’. More specifically, they encourage the preconception that within any given society there is a number of artistic styles that fit a classical aesthetic definition of culture, and endorse notions of quality consistent with conventions of the western mainstream rather than those appropriate to their context.” Council of Europe (1997)
As commonly argued, multicultural policies are considered to be more concerned with recognition than redistribution of power or resources, and that they promote distinctiveness over solidarity (N. Fraser, P. Healey). While these criticisms pinpoint some very important issues that need to be addressed within the context of multicultural societies, solely multicultural policies are not the only cause of the problems.
“Multiculturalism is about the proper terms of relationship between different cultural communities. The norms governing their respective claims… cannot be derived from one culture alone but through an open and equal dialogue between them. (…) Multiculturalism emerges from the way that cultures constantly encounter one another both formally and informally and in private and public spaces. Guided by curiosity, incomprehension or admiration, they interrogate each other, challenge each other’s assumptions, consciously or unconsciously borrow from each other, widen their horizons and undergo small and large changes.” Parekh (2000)
While multiculturalism is ‘about the proper terms of relationship between different cultural communities’, emerging ‘from the way that cultures constantly encounter one another both formally and informally and in private and public spaces’, its political ‘translation’ into multicultural policies has adopted a more ‘branding’ / ‘imaging’ approach rather than considering these relations between cultural groups and how policies and initiatives affect them. Moreover, the majority of multicultural policies have the ‘community’ as the main actor with community being a highly contested term. Even more, under the current changes in the UK governance and regeneration agenda, ‘communities’ from being the recipient of policies and initiatives are asked to become stakeholders, responsible for the present and future.
Inter-group relations
Understanding and establishing the ‘proper terms of relationships between different cultural communities’ is highly affected by the current UK regeneration and governance agendas. In order to understand the effects of these policies on different groups and their inter-relations, it is important to highlight the different processes that influence the formation and nature of these relations. It is also essential to keep in mind that, when discussing about inter-group relations, we are also discussing about power relations and differences. Moreover, as several critics argue (Massey, Amin), discussing inter-group relations and diversity is not (or should not) be perceived as a route towards harmonious ‘living together’ without conflict; it is about providing the opportunities for dialogue and antagonistic argumentation with opportunities of influencing power relations.
Past and current discourses about the notion and construction of community and identity are numerous and offer great insights into the broader social and cultural context. On the other hand, while discussing about inter-groups relations, the theories used draw mainly from the field of social psychology and conflict resolution.
Individuals tend to carry more than one identity and attributes that characterise their belonging to one or several cultural groups. Sherif (1967) has distinguished cultural groups – and groups in general - into ‘reference groups’ and ‘membership groups’. “A reference group is a group to which the individual relates him/herself as a member, or to which s/he aspires to relate him/herself psychologically. A membership group, on the other hand, is a group of which the individual is (actuality) willingly or unwillingly a member” (Yagcioglu, 1996). One can be both a member of reference and membership groups that might be complimentary or oppositional to each other.
A need for belonging and association still remains the creative force in the formation and structure of cultural collective groups (CCG) (Safier). CCG ‘need’ certain preconditions to be satisfied in order for them – their members – to be able to develop socially and individually. These needs – basic instrumental needs (Safier) - can be defined as Respect, Recognition, Resourcing, Representation and Realisation; all equally important and inter-related to each other.
Realistic group theory (developed first by M. Sherif, 1966) suggests that competition between groups for achieving conflicting goals could result in hostility and enmity towards the other group(s) and towards the creation of negative stereotypes. This sort of approach becomes tightly related to development and regeneration initiatives, which may (accidentally or not) increase competition and mistrust between the different groups involved (Amin 2002, Kundnani 2002).
Psychoanalytic / Psychodynamic theories translate the self/other divide from individuals to the collective. The development of the self goes hand in hand with the definition of ‘other’. During the creation of the self and its differentiation from the other, images and representations are formed that fortify the self and define the other and their in between boundaries. In a similar pattern, group self and identities are formed dialectically (Hegel) and at times seek their identity in opposition to other dissimilar groups (Jackson 1980). This theory is expressed both through cultural boundaries and identities as well as through the influence of personal trajectories and part and present histories.
Contact theory, first developed by Allport (1954), argues that inter-group relations can be facilitated and positively influenced through increased contact between their members. This approach has been broadly experimented in post – War Europe and while it is still very influential, it has been severely criticised as naïve and depended on preconditions that are very difficult to be put into place. Still, while it cannot be perceived as the only major influence in inter-group relations, contact is still influential in relations.
When discussing about development and governance, the arguments these theories present become more apparent when they are translated into practices. It is broadly acknowledged that respect and recognition are completely essential in the development of personal and collective relationships. Moreover, there are four spheres / processes that embody the argument of inter-group theories:
1. Resources: Competition for resources, especially the same ones, intensifies problems of stereotyping and hostility while it potentially triggers a pattern of victimisation and conflict. Transparency becomes crucial if this is to be avoided. (Amin 2002, Jackson, 1980, Power & Mumford 2003, Kundnani 2002). Resources also represent access to opportunities that secure the group’s realisation and sustainability.
2. Strong Civic Culture and Participation: Recognition and representation are as important for internal group processes as for inter-group recognition and appreciation as part of the social. It gives the group confidence, self worth and power to define its future As Parekh (2000) argues ‘inter-communal tensions are less frequent and more easily managed when there is an extensive local network of formal and informal cross-communal linkages’. Moreover, it presents the potential of challenging the existing – and usually unequal – power positions.
3. Contact, Interaction and Collaboration: While contact – spatial and social – is significant as a first element of visibility, encounter and recognition Mumford and Power, 2003), it can potentially remain at a very superficial level. On the other hand, interaction – and even more collaboration – can create situations that differences, besides encountering each other, can actually work with each other and identify common interests or alliances (Dialogue).
4. Past and Present trajectories: The emotional dimension of inter-group relations and the similarities or oppositions that they have are a significant influence that can mainly be addressed through dialogue, understanding and time.
These spheres can be tightly connected to everyday practices and to development and governance policies and themes. In an era where cohesion and the re-emergence of ‘responsible communities’ are gaining importance, along with advocating inclusionary modes of development and decision–making, understanding the influences and potential collaborations between differences becomes necessary. In regards to current approaches areas where inter-group relations can be negatively intensified or positively developed include:
· Local decision making (in the form of fora and partnerships)
· Regeneration funding and shared resources
· Housing (access to housing, gentrification, welfare)
· Planning decisions
· Public and collective participation and life
· Employment and job creation
· Social and community cohesion
· Cultural policies (including education, language and cultural freedoms)
· Crime and Racism
In a governance culture where partnership and ‘joint working’ represent the contemporary way of progress, and where groups are required to learn to live and work together, ‘working together’ or collaboration becomes increasingly important. Primarily it allows for a renegotiation of power relations and situations. In addition, it can potentially provide a terrain where inter-group relations can be built not on common visions, but on shared or complimentary interests or needs. In these terms, collaboration can enhance communication and experience, as well as strengthen advocate positions. Regeneration and governance agendas and initiatives, being highly important both for ‘collaboration’ and for contemporary urban UK, are and can be a significant influence to inter-group relations and partnerships.