Including the Excluded? Changing the Understandings of Ethnicity in Contemporary English Planning

Abstract

The inclusion of ethnic and racial groups through participation is a key concern for planners, but far too little attention has been given to the way that groups become identified. Ethnic identity is presumed to be self-evident. Drawing on the political theory of Young and Gilroy the paper questions the basis for ethnic identity as a group membership. These theorists suggest that through attention to relationships between ethnic groups we can open up space to challenge existing ethnic power relations. The paper draws upon qualitative research in two English local authorities to explore how long-standing conceptualisations of ethnicity act to diminish the positive contribution that attention to difference can have. The findings suggest that planners make positive efforts to understand ethnic difference and engage with community groups. However, the identification of groups is not a neutral or objective process, but instead is power-ridden. This article argues that the progressive edge of planning and efforts of planners are undermined if we do not interrogate the basis for the understanding of ethnic difference.

Learning alliance methodology: Contributions and challenges for multicultural planning in health service provision: A case study in Kent, UK

“…Empirical research among UK local authorities reveals that ethno-racial issues have a low priority on their agendas (Beebeejaun, 2006(Beebeejaun, , 2012Loftman & Beazley, 1998;Thomas, 2000). Uncritically recognizing groups defined by ethnicity or race is not coterminous with equality.…”

“…On the contrary, it may reinforce racist stereotypes and naturalize cultural differences (Irazábal, 2012). Beebeejaun (2012) reasonably argues that in most cases ethnoracial identity is presumed to be self-evident for planners and that little attention is paid to key issues such as the way in which groups are identified and self-identified, and how their power and hierarchical relations are structured. This approach may hide the complex, multiple, overlapping, conflicting, asymmetrical, and fluctuating power relations among group members (Irazábal & Huerta, 2014;Irazábal & Punja, 2009).…”

“…Beebeejaun (2012) and MacLeavy (2008) identify three different ways in which the UK planning system has considered ethno-racial minorities and diversity. The first moment was during the post-World War II era, when ethno-racial diversity took the form of perceiving immigrants as a challenge to British national unity, and planning efforts centred on groups living in deprived areas.…”

Urban planning and the challenge of super-diversity

“…However, Beebeejaun (2012) has highlighted that whilst consultation and participation in planning processes are inherently viewed as empowering, in reality there has been insufficient attention on the benefits or dangers of such participation. There have also been problems in terms of presuming ethnic minorities have a 'natural' ethno-cultural identity and participation based on group similarities, rather than on individual political identities (Beebeejaun 2004, p.437).…”

The politicisation of diversity planning in a global city: Lessons from London

“…Recent writings in urban sociology and planning have explored broader questions of commonplace diversity or the ways in which everyday settings such as streets and coffee shops act as places of encounter and exchange (see Beebeejaun, 2012;Hall, 2012;Neal et al, 2012;Wessendorf, 2014). There are also a plethora of institutional studies that focus on the recruitment practices of organisations and the extent to which their activities and values shape the lives of different groups (see Ahmed, 2012;Swan, 2008).…”