Congress

The multiple features that result in socio-spatial segregation often lead to competition between minority groups for a finite set of resources. This competition may in turn lead to aggression between communities.

“Often forgotten, however, are the public spaces on the margins of the European city, on the urban periphery or the inner city. In poorer

neighbourhoods, problems of living together in extremely difficult circumstances bring to the surface the harshness of disadvantage and difference. Here the

inability of the residents to live together peacefully, and the failure of public organisations to deliver the necessary services, mean public spaces are at

times major battlegrounds ...” (Madanipour, 2004, p 267)

47

The intention of this section is to build on social theories already touched upon regarding ethnic conflict and to now address the spatial aspects of this kind of combative urban encounter and the features of the configuration of the space that make policing by outsiders difficult. It should be noted here that ethnic conflict and urban violence are neither synonymous nor is the latter an escalation of the former, in fact, urban violence is a different mode of agitation altogether (Brubaker & Laitin, 1998). The widespread escalation in recent times of ethnic conflict and urban violence may be attributed to a number of factors;

the politicisation of ethnic identities, the weakening and fragmentation of many states in a postcolonial world and thus their inability to maintain order through the legitimate use of force and the emerging spatiality of some ethno-political organisations - such as Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland and the MQM in Pakistan - to protect the rights of their people.

Whilst traditionally enclaves or ghettos are often the physical manifestation of a power relationship between communities as stated earlier, whether it is a majority vs. a minority or between two or more dissimilar communities, the above factors seem to suggest that a slow inversion of this power relation is taking place in certain environments. Often, within the enclave with the increased numbers and thus densities of occupants, politicisation of the ethnic identity due to hostility from either a majority group or other groups vying for the same resources, there is a militarisation of both identity and space. When this happens, the power relationship of majority to minority group is often inverted within the confines of the enclave where, in times of heightened agitation, state security forces can do little more than police the peripheries of the enclave - as was seen in the case of the Bradford riots in 2001. In that particular case, police were barred from entering British Asian majority areas in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley by rioting Muslim youths. As Peach states, “Segregation also provides a defensive protection from attack and it reverses the power structure of outside authority.” (Peach, 1996, p. 267). Madanipour (2004) suggests that this is the result of a “sense of entrapment” in an environment that is limited both spatially - congested and with high densities - as well as with regard to the resources available to the inhabitants of the area. Shirlow and Murtagh (2006) argue that

48

in an ever changing urban context, ethnic violence is often a tool in the maintenance of communal differences and spatial segregation.

“Ultimately, division is not static but is being maintained within a world that constantly alters. Similarly, finding new ways in which to offend and be offended

is crucial for the survival of disconnection between oppositional groups.”

(Shirlow and Murtagh, 2006, p.)

Whilst images one associates with ethnic conflict are often those of riots and petrol bomb wielding youths in Belfast, Bradford, the West Bank etc., ethnically charged aggression is far more varied as a socio-spatial event (Brubaker &

Laitin, 1998). The nature of the act i.e. riots, targeted attacks, suicide bombings, rallies and parades etc. are as diverse as the groups they target. These may include the state or an opposing community or even turned inwards towards one’s own community in an act of rabble rousing or disciplining deviant members. These, like all other aspects of a community’s public life, take place in the public domain, and like all other social behaviours, it seems reasonable to suggest that the nature of the act would respond to the configuration of the space in which it is to take place. For instance political rallies may take place in parks and squares so as to accommodate larger groups of people, processions and riots are associated with the streets so as to allow for mobility and hit and runs and target killings are occurrences often associated with the narrow, winding alleyways of slum areas where a perpetrator can disappear, as was in the case of the rookeries of 19^th century London (Evans 1996). These brief examples suggest that scale, accessibility, the ease, speed and means of movement within the space would be some of the factors that determine the kind of event that would play out in a public space.

As these are often acts of political intimidation, often against the state, one can speculate that they may occur in spaces that would be internally reasonably accessible, whilst being just out of the reach of official security forces. This could, in theory, be similar to the locations identified in housing estates in London frequented by teenaged youths for the purposes of intimidation and anti-social behaviour (Hillier, 1996).

49

As stated earlier, one of the features that further isolate migrant communities is the fact that both movement through and to these locations is interrupted, thus giving rise to spatially segregated pockets within the urban fabric. This seems to imply that there are a limited number of connections or means into and subsequently through the enclave. This impediment to accessibility would hinder the ease with which external security forces may be able to police an area. Thus, whilst these locations may be advantageous in hiding the other from the gaze of the majority, the same features afford protection and enable aggression that cannot be policed.

Often ethnic conflict and violence is a process of power politics over land and votes; land is real estate for development and the community occupying the area are a potential vote bank. Where possible, depending upon the strength of the community in question, the value of the land they occupy or the need for votes, political/community leaders will assist a community in acquiring public services and infrastructure.