THE COMMUNITIES WE ARE REGAINING BUT NEED TO LOSE

Abstract

Michael Young and Gerard Lemos’ (1997) text The communities we have lost and can regain has had a substantial influence on New Labour's communitarian thinking. This paper critically examines a specific aspect of New Labour's communitarian agenda, namely, its use of public housing policy to rebuild communities in order to combat social exclusion on so-called ‘sink estates’. The paper is presented in four main parts. The first part of the paper discusses how, why and to what extent ‘community’ has been lost, with particular reference to public housing estates. The second part examines why community rebuilding is now seen as the solution to the problems caused by the loss of community on public housing estates and, to this end, pays particular attention to the communitarian values that underpin New Labour's third way. The third part of the paper examines some empirical studies of community in order to highlight the key characteristics of ‘community’ and thereby develop a critical understanding of what New Labour are currently seeking to achieve. The fourth part of the paper juxtaposes this discussion of ‘community’ with a discussion of emerging socio-economic trends that have been identified in the literature on late modernity and globalization. By highlighting emerging socio-economic trends such as residential mobility into the community debate, the paper concludes by criticizing the policy of community building as ‘good for you’. Our key point is that community building restricts the residential mobility of poorer households and exacerbates (rather than combats) their social exclusion because a key indicator of social inclusion is their ability to take advantage of the social, cultural and economic opportunities that so often exist ‘elsewhere’.

Le texte de Michael Young et Gerard Lemos’ (1997) The communities we have lost and can regain a eu un impact considérable sur la pensée du New Labour en matière d'action communautaire. Ce papier examine de manière critique un aspect particulier du programme du New Labour en matière d'action communautaire, l'utilisation de la politique du logement social pour reconstruire les communautés et lutter contre l'exclusion social qui touche les ‘sink estates’ (les HLM poubelles). Le présent article comprend autre parties. Dans la première, on discute de la question de savoir comment, pourquoi et dans quelles mesures les communautés se sont destructurées, on s'intéressera tout particulièrement à la place du logement social dans ce processus. Dans la seconde partie, on essaie de comprendre pourquoi le ‘community rebuilding’ est désormais vu comme la panacée aux problèmes générés par la perte du lien social dans les ensembles de logements sociaux. Dans cette optique, on s'intéressera tout particulièrement aux valeurs communautariennes que véhicule l'idéologie de la Troisième Voie promue par le New Labour. Dans la troisième partie du papier, on reviendra sur des études empiriques portant sur certaines communautés de manière à mettre en lumière les caractéristiques principales des ‘communautés’ (ou quartiers) et à mener une analyse critique des orientations actuelles du New Labour en matière d'action communautaire. La quatrième partie de l'article rapproche cette discussion sur le sens de la ‘communauté’ avec la discussion portant sur les tendances économiques et sociales récentes que la littérature sur la ‘sur-modernité’ et la globalisation a identifié. En mettant au jour ces tendances récentes telles que la mobilité résidentielle, cet article se termine par une critique de la politique du ‘community building’. Le point central de cette critique est que cette politique a pour effet de réduire la mobilité résidentielle au sein des ensembles de logement social les moins valorisés et d'exacerber plutôt que de combattre l'exclusion sociale qui frappe ces quartiers.

Keywords:

• community
• place
• time
• space
• mobility
• social exclusion
• work

Keywords:

• communautés
• place
• temps
• mobilité
• l'exclusion social
• travail

Notes

1. However, we should point out that it is not our purpose to enter the contentious area of attempting to define ‘community’. In the context of social policy and practice the typical interpretation is that location, combined with some indicators of ‘working class’ culture (manual work, low income, unemployment or some level of deprivation) is ‘community’.

2. Terms such as social inclusion are imprecise but broadly social exclusion is intended to: ‘ … recognise not only the material deprivation of the poor, but also their inability to fully exercise their social and political rights as citizens’ (Geddes, 1997, p. 10).

3. Ken Livingstone made this same point during his first London mayoral campaign. His complaint was that it would be wrong for the Ford Motor Company to close their Dagenham plant when public money had been used to build a council estate so that people could afford to work there. In other words, since British public housing policy had ‘fed’ Fords with a subsidized labour force, now it was time for Ford to repay their debt to Britain by retaining their plant at Dagenham.

4. In contrast to the mundane and repetitive nature of production line jobs in mass manufacturing, Lash and Urry (1994) refer to many of the growth jobs in the finance, design and cultural industries as involving ‘reflexive labour’ because it is highly creative.

5. This includes women who are choosing to take up educational and subsequently employment opportunities in the more ‘female friendly’ high-tech industries rather than accept their ‘natural progression’ into the ‘traditional’ female role within the structure of the nuclear family. The key difference between women working in the high-tech industries and those in the McLabour force is that the former work either for enjoyment and self-fulfilment (Richards & Milestone, 2000) or to purchase their independence from the confines of the gender role in the nuclear family (Beck, 1992; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). The latter engage in ‘dead end’ work out of necessity.

6. In support of his ‘lack of responsibility’ thesis, Etzioni often restates a research finding that most young Americans want to be tried by jury but few are prepared to serve on one (Etzioni, 1998, p. xvi). He takes this as an indicator of a decline in social life, citizenship and democratic involvement. Young people want benefits without commitments.

7. It should be acknowledged that some writers, such as Graham Crow and Graham Allan (1994) would argue that theorists of modernity tend to overstate the extent of stasis within ‘traditional’ communities and, in doing so, therefore overstate the extent to which this traditional stasis (and therefore place community) has been swept away. For example, Crow and Allan (1994) have provided evidence that ‘traditional’ working-class communities were always more dynamic than static, albeit also possessing the many negative attributes that we have already highlighted.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nigel Sprigings

Nigel Sprigings is a Lecturer in Housing on secondment to SURF from the School of Environment and Life Sciences within the university. A recent recruit to academia, Nigel has over 20 years’ experience in public sector housing, working in the fields of housing management, homelessness and housing renewal before joining the university housing team in 1997. He has been involved with, and led, several research projects into aspects of housing management practice and regeneration. Address: Housing and Urban Studies Unit, School of the Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK. [email: [email protected]]

Chris Allen

Chris Allen is Principal Research Fellow at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University. His main research interests are in the professional management and everyday experience of the urban realm. Within this broad theme, he works on issues relating to regeneration; housing, homelessness and health; disability and disabled people; childhood and disabled children; youth and young people; urban management of crime, disorder and risk and inter-agency partnerships. Address: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Unit 10, Science Park, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK