Religions for Peace UK

Community Cohesion

Each month, as a member, you will be eligible to receive an email update on the current work of Religions for Peace. This may include events or activities, here in the UK; programmes in Europe or peace work in Africa, Asia or the Americas.

You can elect not to receive this by accessing your own page on this site.

On 30th November, Dr Brian Walker engaged in a debate on community cohesion with Community Workers from Bidston & North Birkenhead, Birmingham, Coventry, Kirklees, Oxford, Rochdale, Sandwell, Shipley, Tameside, Tyneside, Walsall, Wirral and Wycombe.

The debate was one of a series organised by the Community Development Foundation (CDF).

The discussion paper is reproduced below:

Are we engaging with the causes of conflict to build cohesive communities?

What is cohesion and where did it come from ?

The term ‘community cohesion’ emerged in Britain in the aftermath of the race riots in the Northern towns of Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001. Ted Cantle chaired a review team into the disturbances and was shocked by the ‘depth of polarisation’. The review team found communities whose lives “often do not seem to touch at any point, let alone overlap and promote meaningful interchange.” The Cantle Report (2001) found people living “parallel lives” and made 70 recommendations to government to tackle segregation and promote community cohesion.

The same year saw a separate, independent inquiry into the riots in Bradford which detailed a city fragmenting along ethnic, religious and cultural lines. The inquiry, chaired by Sir Herman Ouseley, documented how segregated housing and schools were leading to deteriorating race relations, made worse by poor political and community relations.

The riots of 2001 were by no means unprecedented and similar conflicts have erupted in Britain over the decades. Whilst portrayed as ‘riots’ they can also be seen as ‘a form of collective protest against racism and an oppressive state system’ (Gilchrist, A, 2004) or as a process of collective bargaining by civil unrest.

Cantle defines community cohesion as ‘where participation is taking place across communities, knitting them together into a wider whole.’ It’s about ‘building bridges’ between communities and tends to be focused on communities with conflicts. Cohesion works on the assumption that the ethnic alienation and conflict played out in riots on the streets is fostered by people living in ghettos and can be tackled by building better relationships between diverse cultures and breaking down barriers. Thus cohesion is about reducing the risks of future disturbances and is linked closely to programmes for promoting social inclusion, neighbourhood renewal and citizenship.

John Denham MP who took the initial ministerial lead on cohesion has emphasised the need to build a ‘common identity between people from different communities’ sharing core values and a vision. Denham argued in a speech at Bradford University in February 2004 that there has been a reluctance to talk about the difficult issues of identity. According to Denham the centre-left has mistakenly focused on traditional concerns of promoting equality and tackling exclusion and poverty, resulting in an insecurity and a lack of confidence amongst members of both minority and majority communities.

The LGA published guidance in 2002 defining a cohesive community as one where:

• there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities;

• the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and positively valued;

• those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and

• strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds and circumstances in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods.

Local authorities and local councillors are seen as fundamental to building community cohesion through their community leadership role and the development of community strategies.

In ‘Building a Picture of Community Cohesion’ (2003), the Community Cohesion Unit in the Home Office put forward ten indicators for measuring improvements in community cohesion. The key indicator is; ‘The percentage of people who feel that their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together’. The other indicators are grouped into four aspects of community cohesion: common vision and a sense of belonging; diversity; similar life opportunities; relationships. The focus on relationships is built on the popular concept of social capital which has at its core a concern with bonding within communities and bridging to other communities.

What are the causes of conflict?

The policy of community cohesion has emerged, then, in response to the riots and disturbances. However the causes of those conflicts are fiercely contested. Whilst for Denham the focus on poverty and exclusion at the “expense” of identity is mistaken, for other analysts poverty and deprivation amongst minority communities is seen as a key factor behind the disturbances of 2001.

Newspaper reporting of a recent unpublished government study highlighted that Muslims in Britain are more than three times more likely to be unemployed than the general population. Furthermore, deindustrialisation in many of the northern towns has meant the loss of employment for many black and minority ethnic communities within traditional industries such as textiles and manufacturing. The subsequent unemployment combined with poverty, poor housing, racism and institutional discrimination has inevitably resulted in significant levels of exclusion and segregation. Against such a backdrop of economic decline and deprivation, critics argue, the focus on ‘bland concepts’ such as ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘cohesion’ and ‘social capital’ is really about ‘neutralising [the] reality of prejudice, poverty and conflict within and between communities.

Ted Cantle acknowledges the importance of material deprivation and disadvantage in fuelling community conflicts, but focuses our attention on the breakdown of trust as a major cause of unrest;

“There is no doubt that poverty and class play a big role. You can’t have a cohesive society when one group is so disadvantaged and marginalised that it doesn’t have a stake in that society. But…just lifting them out of poverty is not necessarily going to dispel the distrust and myths they have of each other.”

Within a context of social change and, for many areas, industrial decline, individuals and communities can fear a loss of culture and identity and thus perceive other communities as a potential threat. Majority white communities can perceive minority groups as receiving preferential treatment thus breeding hostility and anger. In such situations extremist groups like the BNP try to foster resentment through politicising inequality along racial and ethnic lines. In a Guardian article this month, Rose George, a Dewsbury resident for 17 years goes back to meet people to find out ‘what’s wrong’ and learns from one resident that “indigenous whites” feel neglected and if they complain they get called racist. Whilst the council, in this case Kirklees, promotes Black and Asian issues she suggests that they also need to avoid negative perceptions. Misunderstanding and mutual antagonism creates separation.

Geographical segregation between communities may be a response to fears of racism or inequalities but it may also be an active choice to live with others of a similar culture, class or other background. In this respect, the practice and policy of community cohesion is taking place within the context of a wider debate around multiculturalism and integration, kick-started in part by Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). Phillips has called on the government to move on from multiculturalism, which he sees as encouraging ‘separateness’ between communities. He describes Britain as being in danger of “sleepwalking” into segregation and draws parallels with the American South. Cantle also sees the multiculturalism of 1950’s and 60’s as outdated and argues for greater levels of integration.

Others argue that this emphasis steers the debate away from racism and racial inequality towards blaming black and minority ethnic communities for the problems that they face. The failure to integrate becomes the problem of the individual rather than racism within society and the lack of representation of black and minority ethnic communities within many of our public services does not receive the attention and action it requires. To ensure that blame is not apportioned or shifted in this way it is important to scrutinise all dimensions of “separateness”, including those practised predominantly by well-off or majority white populations, and those sanctioned by other areas of government policy. For example, the ‘choice agenda’ promoted by the current government has in part created social segregation at a community level.

In terms of education, parental choice and the policy of catchment areas has meant families moving house in order to get their children into the better school, which has in turn created huge differentials in housing prices within small areas and resultant changes in the make-up of areas. Secondly, government support for faith schools runs counter to the recommendations of the Ouseley report into the riots in Bradford. In the context of Bradford, Ouseley questioned the lack of contribution that all white or all Muslim schools make to integration and recommended that that no school should have more than 75% of its intake from one faith or ethnic group. He also called for bolder leadership on school boundaries which could end segregated schooling. Both of these recommendations have gone unanswered despite the recognition of how important education is in helping communities to integrate.

Economic, social and cultural factors are at play in causing segregation within and between communities. Cohesion policy and practice must address all three factors and draw links between them, otherwise community cohesion activities focussing on identity and belonging will continually be undermined by powerful countervailing currents in major social policy areas such as housing and education. Moreover, cohesion is assumed to be primarily about ‘race’, and yet divisions within society are also structured along other aspects of identity: gender, age, class, sexual orientation, disability and territorial allegiance. It is important that we take into account this wider equalities agenda and the linkages between oppressions within discussions about cohesion.

Community Cohesion in Practise

An important policy context for community cohesion exists in the form of the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) which imposes a duty on public bodies to promote good race relations. This act widens the scope to tackle race inequality and practice community cohesion. In addition, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights which comes into being in 2007 will bring together the Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission and it is hoped will adopt an integrated approach to issues of equality. For cohesion to be effective it needs to be mainstreamed and run throughout everything that local and national government does in conjunction with the race equality agenda. Cohesion needs to be seen as the responsibility of us all, not just ‘poor’ communities.

As outlined in the previous section the causes of conflict can be actual (deprivation, discrimination), perceived (fear and breakdown of trust), or unintentional (choice agenda). Accordingly, there is no single model of community cohesion and the emphasis within practice is on the need for locally tailored approaches to particular issues and circumstances. Activities under the banner of cohesion need to be informed by and in touch with the experiences of people experiencing racism and disadvantage and thus very much rooted within communities. Is this the case ? Who defines the issues upon which cohesion is based ? Do local people get to tell their story ?

Furthermore, debates about the causes of conflict translate into practice and policy dilemmas. In their report of 2002, the Bradford based ‘Programme for a Peaceful City’ suggest a “framework within which a variety of different communities can co-exist happily: cohesion between communities perhaps, but not a single cohesive community.” Similarly, Gilchrist (2004) suggests that ‘cohesion is not an absence of conflicts and tensions but rather it is the collective capacity to deal with them through informal interactions and dialogue.’ Is it right to intervene to engineer the character of communities ? Are we skilled at harnessing challenges and conflicts to achieve necessary changes, or do our interventions tend to silence or neutralise challenge?

Much community cohesion activity has attempted to engage in the difficult issues and debates through encouraging individuals and communities to put their cards on the table. Challenging prejudice and ‘myth busting’ has been a key part of the work but always within the context of a ‘safe space’. The nature of the work, which is building relationships, is long-term and it needs to move at the pace of the individuals and communities involved. Individuals need time to feel secure and confident in their distinct identities. This focus on relationships and perceptions does not easily lend itself to measurement and target setting. How do funder time-scales take account of the gradual, long-term nature of the work ? How are activities measured and who defines the outcomes ?

Local authorities have tended to lead on community cohesion emphasising their community leadership role. Community cohesion posts have been created which appear to be community development workers with a specialism in cohesion. In some cases workers are trained in conflict resolution & mediation. Whilst ‘front-line’ workers are key to the work, the nature of cohesion activity requires strong support from senior figures within the agency and local areas. As many of the issues underpinning cohesion are inherently political, can workers be neutral ? To what extent are local authority decision-makers willing or able to acknowledge ownership of some of the causes of conflict?

There has been discussion as to whether it is an appropriate role for the state to be facilitating relationships between individuals and communities as this falls within the private realm. However, Mae Shaw makes the point that what are presented as personal troubles requiring private solutions can equally be understood as public or structural issues and thus we need to make the connection between the micro and macro which she sees as almost always political. Making these links is what she sees as one of the core and distinctive skills of community development.

Indeed, cohesion practice has emphasised that work must first begin within communities before any attempt is made to bring communities together. Single and cross-community approaches both have their place and practitioners need to be clear when it is appropriate to use which. Single community work is based on the idea that individuals/communities need to develop confidence and self-awareness before engaging in dialogue with other communities. Will cross community work focus on issues of identity or will it allow communities to link and work upon their common concerns ?

Much cohesion work places value on practical community activities that improve the quality of life for local people. For example, sports activities, social events, area clean ups all provide opportunities for people to learn more about one another and to see each other differently whilst taking part in practical community initiatives. If cohesion is targeted largely at minority communities who are experiencing many of the problems, how do you get majority communities to participate in dialogue ?

What do you think ?

Here are some questions to provoke your thinking and reflection prior to our debate:

- Is community cohesion about keeping the peace or creating change ?

- What sort of challenge and conflict is constructive? What makes it destructive?

- Where and with whom does responsibility lie for ‘community cohesion’ ?

- How are communities selected for cohesion and can they say ‘no’ ? Is cohesion as appropriate in York as it is in Bradford ?

- If community cohesion is about preventing disturbances, where are our preventative efforts best directed ?

- What type of relationships between groups/communities with distinct identities can best provide conditions for a peaceful co-existence ?

- Should we attempt to build a common identity and if so how ?

- Is segregation inevitable in the context of a wider choice agenda ?

CDF will be producing a summary paper from the debate and will be following this debate up with a further one in Feb/March 2006.

If you have any comments, these may be emailed to Dr Brian Walker.

Brian Walker

Published on: 2005-06-25 (1640 reads)

[ Go Back ]

Donate to Religions for Peace (UK)