ABSTRACT
As the disturbances in 2011 spread through London and to other urbancentres*and the country faced the prospect of copycat riots inflaming sectarian conflicts*politicians, commentators and the chattering classes searched for causes. Criminality, gangs, poor educational attainment, the
collapse of family and the moral fabric have all been suggested as
explanations for the disturbances. It is curious that, in seeking this
explanation, reference has been made to the Brixton riots of 1981 but the
disturbances of 2001 in northern English towns, it is unanimously agreed,
were different and do not offer insights into the London riots. The apparent willingness to compare events in 2011 to those of thirty years
earlier, but not to the more recent northern riots, is primarily the result of the
latter being understood by policymakers and commentators as having
cultural causes. The 2011 riots, according to the Riots Communities and
Victims Panel, had no single cause. They were not race riots, and material
deprivation combined with social injustice and inequality, particularly for
young people, were important causal factors along with poor parenting and
suspicion of the police. The panel focused on how government policy might
build a socially cohesive society in which everyone one had a sense of
belonging.1 To make comparisons with the 2001 riots in northern towns
would challenge both the assumption that the latter had cultural causes and
the subsequent policy responses. In order to maintain the present policy
strategy pertaining to ethnic minorities, the two disturbances needed to be
seen as distinct events requiring different explanations and policy initiatives. In sharp contrast to the London-based riots, the northern disturbances
were officially ascribed to a single factor, namely, culture, and specifically
Muslim culture. This approach was underpinned by the formulation and
implementation of community cohesion strategies as the centrepiece of
government policy and the subsequent demise of multiculturalism.
The central argument for community cohesion*that the disorder was the product of self-segregating Muslim communities*was based on the experience of Bradford. The ultimate consequence in terms of social policy
was a shift in emphasis from integration to assimilation, and the turn from
socio-economic factors to cultural causes to explain the failure of multi-
cultural policy. This policy shift generated considerable debate in the
literature, in discussions of segregation, the role of social capital and the
significance of transnationalism, identity and belonging. This paper is based on a larger study funded by the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation and conducted in 2006 with fieldwork in Birmingham, Newham
and Bradford.2 It investigates factors contributing to community cohesion as
they have affected recently arrived Muslim and non-Muslim migrants, as
well as established communities in two Bradford wards: Bowling and
Barkerend, and Little Horton. The aim of the study is to explore factors that
have contributed to or undermined community cohesion as it affects Muslims and non-Muslims, recent migrants and established communities living alongside each other in the chosen localities. In each ward, recently arrived Muslims of fewer than five years’ residence, recently arrived residents of other faiths or no faith, and established Muslims and nonMuslims born in the United Kingdom or with more than ten years’ residence, have been included in the sample. The primary focus of the research has been the experience of those defined as ‘recently arrived Muslims’ and their perceptions of belonging within a given locality. Significantly, recently arrived Muslims are greater in number than those participants belonging to the other categories. Recent non-Muslim migrants provide a comparison with their Muslim counterparts with regard to the experience of integration and perceptions of belonging. It has also been useful to relate the perspectives of recent migrants to those of established communities, given differences in the length of time spent in the United Kingdom. A purposive, quota-based sampling strategy was used to select eligible
interviewees, in order to match the desired characteristics of the sample as discussed above. Sampling was based on the mix of ethnicity and country of origin, and the demographic characteristics*particularly gender and age3* of the local areas. A questionnaire using open and closed questions was used with a sample consisting of 117 participants. This broke down into 52 recently arrived Muslims, 15 recently arrived non-Muslims, 35 established Muslim residents and 15 UK-born non-Muslim residents. This kind of nonrandom sampling meant that the interviewees were not necessarily representative of the population groups from which they were selected, either in the areas in which the research was conducted, in other areas or in England as a whole. Additional interviews were conducted with ten local policymakers and service providers. While it is not possible to generalize the results of this research, the experiences and views of the migrants and established residents, and the Muslims and non-Muslims studied, make a valuable contribution to understanding factors that affect community cohesion at the neighbourhood and local level. This contribution is particularly important given that the processes, consequences and implications of new migration to the United Kingdom are still very much underresearched at the local level. The article begins by elaborating the concept of community cohesion and
exploring its evolution and implementation by policymakers. The focus then shifts to the central aim of the project, namely, to unearth and explore the factors that either enhance or undermine community cohesion in those areas where there are established Muslim communities and in which recently
arrived Muslim migrants have settled. It investigates the concept of parallel
lives by examining the connections between residents and their modes of co-
operation in the same neighbourhood, locality and other localities in Britain.
It also examines the forms of cultural capital used by residents and their
expression in political and civic engagement by examining crosscutting
interaction and modes of co-operation in specific settings in terms of their
nature, quality and strength. Furthermore, the research looks at the impact of
local, national and international interventions on individuals’ feelings about
a ‘common sense of belonging’, and at evidence for social cohesion,
including the factors that affect cohesion. Finally, it examines the impact of
transnationalism on social cohesion, testing the hypothesis that transnation-
alism v. integration is not a zero-sum game. This paper takes the main areas
of debate on community cohesion and tests them with evidence from
Bradford.
