Social Divisions Inequality And Diversity In Britain

[Rell Jette]

Revisedrestructured and updated to reflect the latest data and debates, this new edition of the widely used, classic textbook offers students an accessible account of the major social divisions that structure social life. Written by internationally known sociologists and experts, the book:

This clearly written volume presents a structured and critical guide to a core field that cuts across disciplines. It is an invaluable introduction and source book for students taking social inequalities and diversity modules in sociology, social policy, social work, education and health studies.

"Incisive, wide-ranging and forcefully argued, Social Divisions is essential reading for scholars of inequalities and stratification. An indispensable guide to how social divisions shape and constrain our lives." Wendy Bottero, University of Manchester

"Written by a highly distinguished set of sociologists, this is a standout text with its extensive coverage of so many dimensions of social divisions in one volume." Lavinia Mitton, University of Kent

Geoff Payne is Research Associate in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology at Newcastle University. A former President of the British Sociological Association, he has written and worked on social mobility, social inequalities, and social research methodology.

Eric Harrison is Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the School of Arts and Social Sciences at City, University of London, and Deputy Director of the European Social Survey. He has research interests in social stratification, social inequality, wellbeing and survey methodology.

Two internationally renowned experts in ageing look beyond longstanding factors like class, gender and ethnicity to explore new social divisions, including contrasting states of physical fitness and mental health. They show how differences in health and frailty are creating fresh inequalities in later life, with significant implications for the future of our ageing societies.

This comprehensive and forensic investigation provides essential theoretical and empirical insights on diversity, difference and divisions in old age in the 21st century." Ian Rees Jones, Cardiff University

Chris Gilleard is Visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Social & Policy Sciences at the University of Bath and the Division of Psychiatry at University College London. He has published in the areas of psychology, medicine, history and sociology as they relate to ageing and old age. He is also a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.

Paul Higgs is Professor of the Sociology of Ageing at University College London. He has published widely on the changing nature of later life and is a co-editor of the journal 'Social Theory and Health'. Paul is also a fellow of both the Academy of Social Sciences and the Gerontological Society of America.

Data sources typically used in studies of diversity and social cohesion in the UK include the Census (for measuring diversity) and the Citizenship Survey which was discontinued in 2011 but included a range of questions about attitudes toward and experiences of immigration and integration, as well as other topics relating to community life.

Data from British neighbourhoods also do not conform to findings from the US. Fieldhouse and Cutts (2010), comparing the US and the UK, suggested that in Britain, diversity has a negative effect on both shared social norms and civic participation, but that these negative effects are offset by the positive effect of co-ethnic concentration. In other words, areas that are more diverse have higher rates of co-ethnic density which in turn, Fieldhouse and Cutts suggest, assists the building of more cohesive communities. Laurence and Heath (2008) and Letki (2008), looking at different predictors of social cohesion in the 2005 and 2001 Citizenship Surveys, argue that there is no strong evidence for an eroding effect of diversity once the association between diversity and economic deprivation is taken into account. Still, with British data based on the Citizenship Survey 2005, Laurence (2009) argued that rising diversity is associated with lower levels of neighbourhood trust.

The studies based on British data such as Laurence and Heath (2008), Letki (2008) and Sturgis et al. (2010) have raised the question whether it is income inequality, in particular deprivation and impoverishment of an area, rather than diversity per se that serves to estrange people, a sentiment echoed in much of the British policy research and reports based on qualitative in-depth interviews (Cantle 2005). Most recently, Sturgis et al. (2013) establish that neighbourhood ethnic diversity in London is positively related to the perceived social cohesion of neighbourhood residents with control for economic deprivation. Moreover, it is ethnic segregation within neighbourhoods that is associated with lower levels of perceived social cohesion. Both effects are strongly moderated by the age of the respondents with diversity having a positive effect for the young.

Kawalerowicz and Biggs (2015), exploring 2011 London riots, find that rioters were more likely to come from economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods and neighbourhoods where ethnic fractionalization was high. Further exploration of the intersection between ethnicity and disadvantage is thus very pertinent.

There have also been calls to account for the difference between positive and negative contacts in diverse settings. The recent Casey report (2016) suggests that negative interactions can compound to create a volatile atmosphere at the neighbourhood level. With European data, Laurence and Bentley (2017) provide intriguing evidence that in more diverse communities, the frequency of positive inter-group contact but also negative inter-group contact increases. Increasing diversity may therefore lead to a polarisation in attitudes towards immigration as a result of, and not due to a lack of, inter-group contact. This research suggests a role for mediators at the community level, such as community centres that provide a non-confrontational environment for people of a variety of backgrounds and interests. Similarly the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Inclusion (2017) argued that strong institutions are needed at the neighbourhood level to facilitate interaction (such as welcome centres).

Datasets such as Understanding Society and the Citizenship Survey allow further examination of the role of contact in different settings: neighbourhood, workplace, voluntary associations and more research is needed in the formation and strength of inter-ethnic contacts, positive and negative. For example, Laurence et al. (2018) demonstrate that workplace diversity has a very positive effect but that individuals experiencing negative contact can diminish this trend.

As highlighted at the beginning of this briefing, a key limitation of the available literature remains its focus on diversity and social cohesion, rather than immigration and social cohesion. Communities can become more diverse without immigration and immigration does not always increase ethnic or racial diversity. It is therefore very difficult to use the available research to make strong claims about the relationship between immigration and social cohesion since at local authority level, there is a strong correlation between previous diversity levels and recent migration (Saggar et al. 2012).

Another limitation relates to disagreements about how to define and what indicators to use to measure social cohesion. Frequently, when a measure other than trust is used as seen from the literature overview, no negative relationship between cohesion and diversity can be detected and this is important since the instruments on which the measurement of trust is based in survey analysis are far from perfect (Nannestad 2008).

Furthermore, in the last few years, there has been an expansion of the literature on the integration of migrants and minorities in Europe that reflects on the possible impact of the multicultural model on patterns of incorporation. There is a growing concern that segregation, allowed through multiculturalism and tolerance of separate parallel lives of minorities and the majority, negatively affects the prospects of migrants to accumulate human capital relevant for successful employment in the receiving society (and future employability) such as language fluency (Cameron 2013). In a similar fashion to the cohesion and trust debates, integration research produces conflicting and mixed results. Koopmans (2010) claims that multicultural policies which ensure that non-EU15 immigrants are granted easy access to equal rights do not provide strong incentives for host-country language acquisition, labour market participation and the formation of interethnic contacts. By contrast, Wright and Bloemraad (2012) do not find any support for the hypothesis that multiculturalism has undermined the integration of immigrants and minority groups, using data from the European Social Survey and US Community, Involvement Democracy Survey. With British data (Understanding Society), Nandi and Platt (2013) find that minorities express strong British identity with an increase across generations, a strong and positive finding. With German data (Lancee 2012) establishes that bridging ties with majority members allow for better position in the occupational hierarchy for minorities.

A common feature of the studies reviewed here is that they focus on a few aspects of integration such as identity or employability whereas it can be argued that integration is a multidimensional, multi-stage phenomenon that cannot be reduced to one or two outcomes. A notable exception is the work of Lessard-Phillips (2016) which discusses the multi-dimensionality of integration and links contact with a variety of other integration outcomes such as neighbourhood segregation or cultural incorporation. We are still somewhat challenged by broad interpretation of what cohesion might mean and the work of Heath (2018) points to this complexity. It is crucial to consider generational change and the rich tapestry of migration, majority and minority experiences in the adaptation process should become a primary focus of research to add depth to otherwise heated debates that are often based on extrapolations and assumptions.

3a8082e126