![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Whilst social science has recognized that racist discourse often attempts to ‘fix’ outsider groups to particular locations, much less has been said about the locations themselves. The Palace Hotel is a prominent feature in gossip and public debate concerning the presence of ‘asylum-seekers’ in the seaside town of Southend-on-Sea, Essex. This paper considers why this is so. As a basis for the development of a theoretical model, the focus of the paper is outlined using a variety of qualitative sources, including interviews from the author's doctoral fieldwork. From here two distinct approaches are applied in order to explain how the Palace Hotel has become synonymous with the presence of ‘asylum-seekers’ in Southend-on-Sea. The first of these draws upon the social constructionist trend within geography that conceives of certain spaces as ‘marginal’. The second account engages with the often forgotten role that materiality plays in such constructions. It is argued that there is no need to choose exclusively between the two approaches because tensions can be resolved on the basis of a stratified realist ontology. The fundamental tenet of this ontology is that objects are permitted ‘relative autonomy’ from our lay or scientific knowledge about them. Central to the explanation offered is an examination of the opposing conceptions of temporality inherent to each account. Lastly, the psycho-dynamic ‘space’ between meaning and materiality is argued to be generative of a collective condition of melancholia. This insight is drawn upon in the recommendation of a coherent model for understanding the pronounced position of the Palace Hotel in discourse surrounding ‘asylum-seekers’ living in Southend.
Si les sciences sociales ont distingué que le discours raciste tente souvent de «placer» les groupes étrangers dans des lieux particuliers, les lieux en soi n'ont pas énormément fait l'objet de discussions. Le Palace Hotel est un élément marquant des commérages et du débat public entourant la présence de «demandeurs d'asile» dans la ville côtière de Southend-on-Sea en Essex. Cet article examine pourquoi cela est ainsi. En vue d'élaborer un modèle théorique, le thème central de l'article est exposé dans ses grandes lignes à partir de sources qualitatives variées, y compris des entrevues menées dans le cadre du travail de terrain du projet doctoral de l'auteur. À ce stade-ci, deux approches distinctes servent à expliquer comment le Palace Hotel a pu devenir un synonyme de l'existence des «demandeurs d'asile» à Southend-on-Sea. La première s'appuie sur le courant socioconstructiviste en géographie et sa conception d'espaces «marginaux». La seconde approche noue un intérêt pour la place souvent négligé que détient la matérialité dans de telles constructions. Compte tenu que les tensions entre les deux approches peuvent se dissiper à l'appui d'une ontologie réaliste stratifiée, il est proposé alors qu'il ne soit pas nécessaire de trancher entre elles. Cette ontologie avance l'idée fondamentale selon laquelle les objets possèdent une «autonomie relative» par rapport aux connaissances profanes ou scientifiques que nous avons d'eux. Au cœur de l'argument se situe l'examen des conceptions opposées en matière de temporalité qui se distinguent dans les deux approches. En terminant, il est affirmé que «l'espace» psycho-dynamique qui existe entre le sens et la matérialité peut être source de mélancolie au sein d'une collectivité. Cette idée est à la base de la proposition d'un modèle cohérent pour comprendre l'importance donnée au Palace Hotel dans le discours sur les «demandeurs d'asile» habitant à Southend.
Aunque en el campo de las ciencias sociales se ha reconocido que el discurso racista muchas veces trata de ‘pegar’ grupos de afueranos a lugares específicos, se ha hablado poco sobre estos mismos lugares. El ‘Palace Hotel’ ocupa un lugar importante en el chismorreo y el debate público acerca de la presencia de los ‘solicitantes de asilo’ en la ciudad costera de Southend-on-Sea, en Essex. Este papel considera porqué es así. Como base para el desarrollo de un modelo teórico, el tema del papel se explica por medio de una variedad de fuentes cualitativas que incluye entrevistas del trabajo de campo del doctorado del autor. De aquí aplico dos enfoques distintos para explicar como el ‘Palace Hotel’ ha llegado a ser sinónimo de la presencia de ‘solicitantes de asilo’ en Southend-on-Sea. El primer enfoque hace uso de la tendencia en la geografía hacia construcción social en que se considera que ciertos espacios son ‘marginados’. El segundo enfoque trata el papel—muchas veces olvidado—jugado por la materialidad en estas construcciones. Sugiero que no es necesario elegir exclusivamente entre estos dos enfoques puesto que los conflictos pueden ser resueltos a base de una ontología realista estratificada. El principio fundamental de esta ontología es que los objetos tienen ‘relativa autonomía’ de los conocimientos, tanto legos como científicos, que tenemos de ellos. Parte fundamental de la explicación aquí ofrecida es un examen de las nociones contradictoras de lo temporal inherentes a cada enfoque. Para terminar sugiero que el ‘espacio’ psicodinámico entre significado y materialidad genera una condición colectiva de melancolía. Hago uso de esta idea para recomendar un modelo coherente para mejor entender el lugar importante que ocupa el ‘Palace Hotel’ en el discurso sobre los ‘solicitantes de asilo’ que viven en Southend.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by an ESRC postgraduate studentship award (R42200154335). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the RGS-IBG annual conference 2003 and at CRER, University of Warwick. Amendments to the paper were written whilst I was a visiting scholar at the Istituto di Sociologia Internationazionale di Gorizia (I.S.I.G.), Italy. Special thanks to Peter Hopkins (University of Edinburgh) and David Howard (University of Edinburgh) for their help and encouragement with earlier drafts of this article.
Notes
1 The term ‘asylum-seeker’ is used throughout this paper to refer to a disparate group of asylum-seekers and refugees residing in Southend-on-Sea. This usage is derived from the ‘lay’ parlance of interviewees who alternatively refer to this group as ‘Kosovans’. Asylum-seekers began arriving in the town in significant numbers in 1998. This population was largely comprised of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo or Roma from Poland and the Czech Republic. However, since 2000 the majority of new asylum-seekers have originated from Zimbabwe and Iraq. The total population of Southend is approximately 160,000 and of this number there are estimated to be 1,200 asylum-seekers living in the town. Not all of these people fall under the jurisdiction of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, as several local and London boroughs take advantage of the high availability of rented accommodation in Southend.
2 Thirty semi-structured interviews were carried out between March and December 2003. Respondents were selected from a sample frame of residents who had completed an earlier survey which was sent out to nine regions in the town. Selected officials (from planning, social services, housing, etc.) also became key informants. Five ‘asylum-seekers’ were also interviewed (through an ‘opportunity’ sample) about their life in Southend. All resident participants (including the ‘asylum-seekers’) recorded a time-space diary for one week and used a disposable camera to take photographs of locations important in their everyday life in the town. The research was carried out for doctoral thesis that is due to be submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of Essex in July 2005.
3 The key point is that the amount of ‘asylum-seekers’ housed in the Palace Hotel is consistently (and puzzlingly—hence this paper) exaggerated. I have investigated this quite thoroughly. A senior housing official told me, ‘We don't even have any homeless families in the Palace Hotel at all now. Other boroughs might use the Palace Hotel, but again because we're not supposed to have anyone in B&B that's the same for all other councils as well’. I then asked more specifically about ‘asylum-seekers’ and was told: ‘I must admit, I've been there a couple of times and I haven't seen sort of anyone that would come under that description … Let's just say I was there on Friday morning and I never saw hardly anyone so I'd be well surprised if that was the case. Maybe they were hiding in the wardrobes’. I also interviewed the head of the asylum team at social services. I was informed, ‘We don't have anyone in the Palace Hotel. We have used it on very rare occasions when we've been absolutely desperate for someone to have somewhere to sleep for the night, but I think—I mean check with the Palace—but I think most of the people who live at the Palace are people who are placed by homelessness departments, as opposed to social service asylum-seekers departments [my emphasis]’. After checking with the Palace Hotel I was told categorically that the hotel was not housing ‘asylum-seekers’ (and never had done) but is sometimes used by various councils to provide shelter for the homeless—a minority of whom may feasibly be (or at least appear to be) non-British.
4 It may justifiably be asked whether all Southend's residents—including ‘asylum-seekers’ are equally absorbed by the Palace Hotel. Whilst I cannot answer that question adequately in this paper, I would like to state that I have homed in on what I consider, from my data, to be a dominant web of ideas that couples the hotel, Southend's perceived ‘demise’ and ‘asylum-seekers’. The term ‘established’ is used deliberately to echo Elias’ (Citation1976) famous study ‘Established and the Outsiders’ but also because it is my understanding that those who were transfixed by the hotel were those who had lived in Southend for a significant period of time. Newer residents were still likely to view the seafront as a dangerous place, but less likely to mention the Palace Hotel in particular.
5 Hetherington states that, ‘materiality is about stuff, the stuff of the world. Straightforwardly, we can imagine three kinds of stuff’ (Hetherington Citation2002). Firstly, there are objects: ‘stuff’ as diverse as machines, buildings, cars, cable networks and coffee. Secondly, the world is constituted also by bodies. Third, texts such as newspapers, books, CD ROMs, maps, drawings and designs are ‘information—but information in a material form’ (Hetherington Citation2002).
6 Hetherington is not implying here that geography has never offered a materialist theory. This is most notably provided by, amongst others, Harvey (Citation1973). However, references to the ‘materiality of place’ instead refers to the ‘relational materiality’ closely associated with Bruno Latour and John Law's actor-network theory.
7 The monologue was written with the aid of field notes collected on 28 August 2003.
8 This position is almost Althusserian wherein ‘ideologies’ (in this case spatial) do not only determine what we think but also decide how we are likely to behave. As Burr (Citation1995) explains, for Althusser, ideology is ‘lived experience’ and comprises a ‘"package deal" of material things, practices and ideas that are woven into each other’ (Burr Citation1995: 83).
9 This was told to me by a senior officer within Essex Police.
10 There are many shades to social constructionism. For example, Gergen (Citation1999: 46–50) identifies four emerging contours (or themes) characteristic of social constructionism but states that ‘it is important to realise that not all those who participate in social constructionist dialogues necessarily agree with all the assumptions’. My criticism here of Shields (Citation1991) is therefore not applicable to all social constructionist approaches. Perhaps the key distinction is between what may be called ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ forms of social constructionism. Whilst this could form the basis of a paper in itself, a rudimentary definition understands that ‘weak’ constructionism emphasizes the way in which knowledge bears the mark of its social origins, whereas ‘strong’ constructionism claims that objects and knowledge are nothing more than social constructions (Sayer Citation2000: 90).
11 Latour's work pioneered ethnographic studies of scientists and engineers at work (see Latour 1987, 1993). According to Benton and Craib (2001: 68), the key implication of the actor network approach is that ‘the instruments, buildings, reagents, microbes, particles and so on involved in laboratory practice all play their part in the making of science’. Actor network theory argues that these features of our existence are so central that the divide between society and nature is unsustainable.
12 Compatibility between actor network theory and realism cannot be established in this paper. I am not in anyway attempting to propose an unproblematic consistency between the two approaches. Rather, I am drawn to the insights offered by Hetherington in terms of understanding place as composed of materials as well as meaning.
13 Hetherington (Citation1997a: 193) clearly states: ‘There is human agency but there are other forms of agency too, without which places cannot be’.
14 Shields (Citation1991: 110–111) offers a similar proposition. He suggests that Brighton developed through three phases of liminality: from ‘liminal aristocratic Brighton’ to ‘Mass seaside holiday Brighton’ to ‘Dirty weekend and violence Brighton’. In each phase, the ‘materiality’ of place subtly changed (although this is not Shields’ focus) but the ‘over-arching’ social spatialization of a ‘place on the margin’ remains. Whilst the ‘content’ of the spatialization may vary slightly, its ‘form’ (of marginality/liminality/the carnivalesque) remains relatively constant.
15 Interviews with ‘asylum-seekers’ revealed that they were frequently refused permission from bars, restaurants and nightclubs in the town and were refused service or ignored in some shops. These factors coupled with a generally poor standard of housing and lack of material wealth could be seen as encouraging their presence in the public ‘front-stage’ areas of town such as the seafront and the immediate area surrounding the Palace Hotel.
16 A self-destructive attack upon Southend's ‘we-ideal’ was also evident in the 1960s when the Mayor led a campaign to rid the town of its old image: ‘to bust Southend's muddy image as a playground for singing, drinking, cockle-guzzling cockneys’ (quoted in King and Furbank Citation1992: 93).