{ "items": [ "\n\n
The aim of this chapter is to examine multidimensional approaches to equality from a variety of perspectives: theoretical, policy, and practice. In particular, it examines the e?cacy of a certain mode of interventionism. First, however, we need to clarify what we mean by multidimensionality. Schiek rightly points out that the term is open to some confusion in that it may, for example, refer to di?erent conceptions of equality or to di?erent sets of grounds speci?ed in order 'to achieve equality for multi-faceted human beings in social reality'.1
\n \n\n \n \nThe analysis which follows stems from a growing concern at the apparent inability of the literature, both beyond the discipline and within it, to provide a convincing theorisation of the structural position of Britain\u2019s minority populations within the housing market. Given that large-scale post-war migration from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent began in the 1950s, and that significant numbers of black citizens had settled in Britain many decades earlier (Fryer 1984; Hiro 1991; May and Cohen 1974), this is somewhat surprising. Within the obvious confines of such a brief chapter, I shall endeavour to sketch out the basis for a re-evaluation of existing debates, and demonstrate how newly available empirical data can provide insights into the value (or otherwise) of various substantive theoretical positions.
\n \n\n \n \nPolyethnic societies present some key implications for planners. Discrimination against, and harassment of, minorities is worryingly universal, and planning professions in all societies need to recognize and address these issues. Planning practice needs to reflect an awareness of the implications of difference while incorporating an understanding of processes of social change in relation to minority and migrant groups, specifically, changes in household size and/or structure and orientation toward the housing market. The core empirical data of the paper comes from the 1991 Census of Population and a major study of housing needs in a large district in northern England. Although focused substantively on British debates and data, most of the concerns addressed in this paper have an element of universality.
\n \n\n \n \nThis article focuses on explanations of housing inequality in relation to key social divisions such as 'race' and ethnicity. Much of the recent debate about these issues, both in the academic literature and in the sphere of politics (especially within the European Union) has been framed in terms of 'social exclusion'. It is argued that the term is used in a number of distinct senses, which leads to considerable confusion at a conceptual level and obscures rather than clarifies key theoretical issues. Its use also leads to oversimplified accounts of complex processes, and can in extremis lead to the pathologization of communities. In the latter case, its dangers mirror those of related concepts such as the 'underclass'. Illuminating the theoretical arguments in the current literature by reference to British data, the article concludes that the 'paradigm of social exclusion' should be jettisoned by social scientists in favour of a return to a serious analysis of social divisions within a context of debates about structure and agency.
\n \n\n \n \nThe paper begins with an overview of the ways in which the concept of 'social exclusion' has been employed in both academic and political and media discourse. In the context of 'race' and housing, the term is most often seen in debates about inequalities between majority and minority communities. These inequalities form the basis of the next two sections of the paper: the first dealing with the national evidence, the second with a case study of Bradford District. The paper then looks at how the academic literature has traditionally theorised these inequalities, and asks whether the exclusion paradigm adds anything of value to these debates. It is concluded that whilst the concept may well be of use in drawing attention in policy circles to questions of inequality, it is rather less worthwhile in the context of sociological debates. It has tended to be used in numerous disparate senses thus potentially obscuring (rather then clarifying) issues, is little more than a descriptive label, and has lent itself to a form of sloganeering which may stifle rather than encourage debate.
\n \n\n \n \nWith a few notable exceptions planning analysts have been rather slower to recognise the very difficult issues raised by a polyethnic community. Much of the recent literature has tended to focus on 'excluded' individuals and communities, or even 'excluded' neighbourhoods. This paper will argue that it is vitally important for the future of our urban areas to address the policy and practice dimensions of both inequality and difference. The purpose of the present article is to provoke debate, and to dispel some popular myths and stereotypes which plague much of current policy making and implementation. Owing to its brevity, it will not be possible to delve into some of the more complex nuances. It will, however, point out where the key questions arise, and where to look for possible solutions. As such, it is intended as a contribution to the debate about cultural and ethnicity-sensitive service delivery. In order to sharpen the analysis, it focuses in particular on one set of interrelated issues: namely, housing policy and household projections.
\n \n\n \n \nThe data on which this paper is based comes from an international study of \u2018Perceptions of Europe\u2019 sponsored in 1990 by the Polish Association for the Club of Rome in Warsaw. In all, twelve countries throughout Asia, the Middle East, North and South America, Europe, and Australia participated. \u00a9 1992, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
\n \n\n \n \nMichael Banton's paper provides fascinating insights into his long-running intellectual disagreements with John Rex, the other major post-war figure in the sociology of \u2018race relations\u2019. Published work and personal recollections are supplemented by a series of communications by letter to flesh out the precise nature of these debates. They reveal differing views on the ontological status of \u2018race\u2019, race relations and racism, as well as a number of criticisms of Rex's work. He argues that Rex was wrong to put so much faith in the ability of classical sociology to address these concerns, and that there was a disjuncture between theory, methods and substance in his empirical work. There is also a suggestion that Rex played down the significance of racism. The greatest difference between them, however, lay in their divergent views on the role of sociology and the sociologist.
\n \n\n \n \nThere are few sociology texts that acquire truly seminal status. This brief paper, however, reflects on one of the most celebrated and often cited works in British urban sociology. It seeks to explain: (1) the book's initial impact on debates and research in the field of \u2018race and ethnic relations\u2019; (2) the key controversies sparked by its theoretical positioning; and (3) why, and in what ways, it remains of relevance almost half a century after it was written. It concludes that there are two reasons for its continued appeal and significance. First, it placed housing firmly at the centre of debates about the position of Britain's migrant communities; second, it illustrates the potential of sociological research. At a time when controversies rage about \u2018impact\u2019, here is a work that not only contributed to our theoretical understanding of contemporary society, but also illustrated the value of \u2018public sociology\u2019 by engaging with the polity to bring about social change.
\n \n\n \n \nThis book makes a forthright case for a shift in policy focus from 'community cohesion' to the broader notion of social cohesion, and is distinctive and innovative in its focus on evaluation. It constitutes an extremely valuable source both for practitioners involved in social cohesion interventions and for researchers and students studying theory-based evaluation and the policy areas highlighted (housing, intergenerational issues, the recession, education, communications, community development).
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper explores the notion of 'ethnic group' focussing, in particular, on attempts to transform the concept into an empirical indicator in population censuses. The latter is seen to be riven with difficulties, not least the fact that such measures tend to be attempting to address two conflicting agendas - one requiring an ascriptive, the other a subjective, measure. Illustrating the core arguments with the decennial census in Britain, the paper explores the contested political terrain underpinning the introduction of such a question, and then demonstrates that the construction of an 'ethnic group' indicator takes the form of a complex dialectical process involving negotiation and re-negotiation on the part of a myriad of social actors and structural forces at macro-, meso- and micro-levels. Finally, it reflects on broader concerns arising from the reification of the measure, not least its material effects in the context of debates and policies on 'multiculturalism'. \u00a9 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
\n \n\n \n \n