Segregated Britain. Farhaan Wali

from its surroundings’ (Flint, 2009, p. 191). This definition would imply that an enclave is a distinct ‘territorial space’. For Flint (2009, p. 191), this distinct territory is also ‘economically and politically’ segregated from the wider territory. This description does not quite match up to the reality of Muslim social life that I observed; as the inhabitants did not develop an understanding that politically or economically separated them from British society. Instead, I witnessed different forms of expressing cultural ←5 | 6→and religious identity that gave rise to different levels of belongingness. Therefore, my goal is not to locate or prove the existence of Muslim enclaves; rather, I want to understand how British Muslims construct meaning within so-called enclaves.

      The role state policy plays further complicates the problem, especially in restricting social stratification for economically deprived communities. In particular, the destabilisation of council estates after the 1980 Housing Act restricted the mobility of poorer communities (Madden and Marcuse, 2016). In theory, due to local council housing policies, According to Balchin and Rhoden (2002), who studied housing policy in the UK, some ethnic communities found themselves bound to the poorest areas of cities and towns due to local council housing policies and high unemployment. These economically disadvantaged areas witnessed gradual ethnic concentration, escalating White Flight from those areas (Cantle, 2018).

      This means the state is not necessarily neutral. However, from a socio-political and legal standpoint, the British state does not practise or enforce a policy of keeping ethno-religious communities apart. Historically, in the United States, after the abolishment of slavery, many Southern states actively employed a policy of racial segregation, which naturally spawned ethnic enclaves (Warde, 2016). This is why some academics argue that ethnic enclave formation is rooted in non-institutionalised factors, such as high levels of concentrated immigration (Martin, 2006). This ignores the structural inequalities created by housing policy. After speaking to locals, I discovered in the East End that some early Bangladeshi immigrants were able to secure homeownership after several years of undertaking low-skilled employment. This homeownership brought increased residential equality and gave them the opportunity to locate housing in the suburbs.

      This suggests Muslim communities in Britain are not economically segregated. The economic realities of modern societies do not reinforce the artificial social boundaries that keep people separated. As Schelling (2006) postulated from a cost-benefit breakdown, no active agent in society seeks out isolation. In other words, the increase in welfare, decentralising of the central government (local authorities), and the lessening of economic barriers have placed substantial obstacles in the quest to exist independently from the dominant culture. On the other hand, from a socio-economic ←6 | 7→perspective, one must acknowledge socio-spatial segregation in large urban settings. This type of enclave formation process is relatively common in large metropolitans, which give rise to social clustering amongst people of similar economic activity and lifestyle. This means enclave formation may be a relatively common phenomenon in large urban settings. As Tiebout (1956, p. 422) asserts, this clustering of people is grounded within the complexity of class mobility, seeing that agents select public good by ‘voting with one’s feet’. Some middle-class families move to a different catchment area, as they seek out better public facilities for their children. So, if enclave formation is relatively common across the UK, then why single out ‘Muslims’?

      According to Melanie Phillips, a social and political commentator, Muslim enclaves are a growing problem in Britain. She claims the Muslim presence in London, for example, has radically altered the socio-cultural landscape of the capital (Phillips, 2006). This assertion sees Muslim population growth and alleged cultural separation as inherently a Muslim problem. Thus, she claims Muslim enclaves exhibit distinct characteristics, making them inherently different from other forms of enclaves. If these so-called Muslim enclaves exist, then I wanted to find out how the residents reconcile religion, nationality and belongingness.

      Physical Enclaves

      An excellent place to begin an assessment of enclaves is the matter of segregation of space. On one end, many cities have witnessed an upsurge of fortified enclaves, such as Johannesburg, São Paulo and Karachi (Caldeira, 2000). The formation of these physical enclaves is rooted in the perceived lack of urban security. Therefore, walled residential enclaves, commonly referred to as ‘gated communities’, are a type of physical enclave. Historically, walls were a physical defence from outside threats, and thus walls were often constructed around the city as a form of security (Brebbia and Clark, 2014). Today, we find walled communities within the city. These enclosed spaces offer residents a sense of physical security, as the walled boundaries seemingly keep out the ‘undesirables’ of ←7 | 8→the wider city. In this sense, the walls of these enclaves represent a power divide, representing a physical boundary amongst social groups, namely between rich and poor. According to Caldeira (2000), these walls do not necessarily exclude people based on race or ethnicity. This may be true at one level, but to some extent, this may ignore the fact that residential enclaves are often socially selected by income, and by default ethnicity.

      White, upper-middle-class residents, for example, predominantly populate gated enclaves in the United Kingdom (Caldeira, 2000). This means enclaves of this type exclude residents through the class hierarchy, as the walls represent the division of status in society. This was aptly identified by Sibley (1995), who asserted residential exclusion is predicated on socially constructing differences between groups based on wealth, ethnicity and religion. In essence, these segregated residential spaces are socially constructed in direct opposition to the negative perceptions of the ‘other’. In simple terms, the dominant class does not want to live among minority groups. Through selective housing, these groups can limit the types of people that populate their protective space. Thus, modern urban enclaves symbolise exclusion through a power imbalance, which are more pronounced at the top and the bottom of the stratification scale. Migrants wield little power as they cannot select housing freely. In contrast, the upper class have significant selective power, choosing to reside in gated enclaves. This is why, Lefebvre (1991, p. 26) believes, migrant and resident enclaves are not neutral spaces, because they reflect wealth and power dichotomy.

      Non-Physical Enclaves

      Gated enclaves are distinct as they are separated by walls, which set them apart from the wider surroundings. However, enclaves do not necessarily have to be separated by walls. In the heavily divided city of Mostar, segregation was visible in the public spaces of the city. It was easy to see the physical divide, but I also saw a cultural separateness that cloaked the city. This non-physical form of cultural segregation took place in a kind of imagined space. This is because enclaves do not necessarily follow a linear path, as there are multiple points of ‘intersecting experiences’ (Petersen, ←8 | 9→2006, p. 721) In other words, different social categories – such as gender, ethnicity, class, and religion – give rise to physical points of divergence.

      Take Midhat, a 42-year-old Bosnian Muslim, who grew up on the west bank of the Neretva River, which was predominantly Croat. According to Midhat, before the war, there were no physical enclaves, but there was a cultural divide. As he states, ‘our culture different to them [Croats] … no drink for us, we eat halal they eat pig … we pray in mosque’ (Wali, 2018). This would suggest that before the war, there were no clear boundaries related to physical proximity. However, at the cultural level, a non-physical boundary existed based on ethno-religious attachment.

      This indicates that conceptions of space dictate spatial enclaves. Physical walls do not divide the migrant enclaves that are populated across Britain. According to Park (1969, p. 40), migrant enclaves can be described as a ‘mosaic of little worlds’. In this sense, the migrant enclave is a separate territory formed from an assemblage of distinct pieces, such as ethnicity, religion and culture. They are not necessarily ethnically homogenous. The migrant enclave in the East End of London, for instance, is a shared ethno-religious space with different ethnic groups living together. This could mean migrant enclaves in the United Kingdom are not exclusivist in terms of ethnicity. However, the Muslim population is highly concentrated within these territories, which may suggest religious homogeneity.

      In simple terms, a migrant enclave is defined as a distinct geographic space where a disproportionate number of non-native groups reside, creating socio-spatial clustering of migrants. Within this space, ethno-religious