Fostering Inter-Cultural Dialogue – Visionary Intentions andthe Realities of a Dedicated Public Space

The rise of Inter-Cultural Dialogue

The retreat from multiculturalism, particularly withinpolicy circles, has been accompanied by a growing consensusaround the value of building inter-cultural dialogue as themeans of producing social harmony in ethnically diversecities (Council of Europe, 2009; Commission on Integrationand Cohesion, 2007; Wood and Landry, 2008). As the Councilof Europe (2009) has argued, multiculturalism tended tofoster communal segregation and mutual incomprehensionrather than understanding. Added to this there were claimsthat multiculturalism undermined the rights of individuals,particularly women (Okin, 1997; Macey, 2009). The terroristbombings in London in July 2007 and the riots earlier in thedecade in several northern England towns were attributed, inpart at least, to the failings of multiculturalism and itsaccentuation of separatism. If such a conclusion has beencontested alternative policy modes were sought that wouldgive more direct expression to the need for establishingsocial harmony while still respecting difference anddiversity. Inter-culturalism, it has been argued, offers acompromise path between assimilation and multiculturalismbased on the value of dialogue; for the Council of Europeinter-cultural dialogue offered “open and respectfulexchange of views between individuals, groups with differentethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds andheritage on the basis of mutual understanding and respect”(p.10). In other words, inter-culturalism was predicated asthe means of respecting difference and of countering thetensions to which it gives rise.

Underpinning such dialogue is the fostering of ‘meaningfulinteraction’, the nature of which together with guidancenotes on its implementation as well as advice on the

mechanisms through which delivery can be made has been thesubject of a plethora of recent reports by the (UK)Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2008,2009a, 2009b) together with the National Community Forum(2009) and the Commission for Racial Equality (2007).Meaningful interaction, it is assumed, will help buildcommunity cohesion through its ability to counterstereotyping and racial prejudice; as the results of theCitizenship Survey suggested, those who have friends fromdifferent ethnic backgrounds are more likely to havepositive views of ethnic diversity. Yet, as socialpsychologists have debated, the fundamental assumption ofcontact theory – that it alters how we feel about the otherin positive ways – remain contested (Dixon et al, 2005), addedto which there has been less recognition than there shouldhave been that interaction can take various forms, only someof which are likely to contribute in any durable sense toincreasing respect between different groups.

Even accepting that interaction and inter-group contact canhave positive outcomes on the feelings we have towardsmembers of other groups, its achievement raises questions inturn as to what types of interaction are likely to achievesuch an outcome and how it is to be attained (Holland,Clark, Katz and Peace, 2007). In particular, and in what isthe prime focus of this paper, through what spaces is itlikely to occur; in particular, can meaningful interactionbe engineered through inspired design? Where public spacesare designed to foster inter-cultural understanding how dosuch spaces achieve their intended goal? How does agencyinfluence the understanding of the designed space, and inparticular are alternative readings, and usages, of it ableto emphasise attributes of it other than those intended inits design? Empirically, the paper draws on the experienceof a dedicated public space in Glasgow explicitly designedto celebrate diversity, the Hidden Gardens. The space hasbeen cited in several reports as exemplifying ‘goodpractice’, notably in the Commission on Integration andCohesion’s report (2007) Our Shared Future. Our analysis adopts

a more critical stance in demonstrating the problemsunderpinning the social engineering objectives it subsumed.The analysis draws on interviews conducted among those whoseinspiration led to the creation of the Hidden Gardens, tothose charged with its day-to-day running as well as surveyevidence based on users of the space.

The ambitions of the Hidden Gardens were not dissimilar tothose expressed through community cohesion – the fosteringof shared values and common bonds promoted through socialcontact (Robinson, 2008). Yet, as much as community cohesionbecame a dominant policy trope that would be able to addressa range of social problems through the reinvigoration ofcommunity, how this was to be achieved and what was theevidence for it was less apparent than was the vision setfor it. The experience of the Hidden Gardens demonstratedthe problems arising from the practice of communitycohesion, specifically those linked to the creation of apublic space dedicated to fostering meaningful interaction.

Charting Inter-Cultural Dialogue: Meaningful Interaction andPublic Spaces

The practice of inter-group interaction, and how it can befostered, has become, not surprisingly, a key concern forpolicy guidance. Our Shared Future, the final report of theCommission on Integration and Cohesion (2007), has become awidely quoted reference much of which was devoted to howgreater inter-group interaction could be achieved. TheCommission in turn spurred the production of furtherguidance publications setting out the rationale forestablishing community cohesion, through positiveinteraction (DCLG, 2009a), building a local sense ofbelonging (DCLG, 2009b) together with the means for ensuringdelivery (2009c). As with Our Shared Future, these later studiesworked within the assumption that meaningful interactionwould have positive outcomes for community cohesion, but didnot do so necessarily in an uncritical language. Critically,diversity itself was envisaged as having potentially

negative impacts on cohesion, particularly in urban andrural areas newly exposed to its emergence, as well as ininner city areas which had a longer tradition of ethnicdiversity and more recently of ‘super diversity’ (CIC, 2007;Vertovec, 2007). That diversity was characteristic ofdifferent types of area meant also that fostering meaningfulinteraction had to be contextually sensitive – that, as muchcohesion may be relevant to different geographical areas,its resolution needed to be local, limiting the portabilityof ‘good practice’ between areas.

In charting the basis for building social cohesion fourtypes of meaningful interaction are defined in the DCLGreport basing itself on an earlier study by the Commissionfor Racial Equality (CRE,2007) – ‘grounding’, ‘banal’,‘opportunity’ and ‘growth’. While the first refers inessence to bonding social capital and to the reaffirmationof one’s own identity, the latter two are closer to theachievement of bridging social capital either throughnetworking in which people of different backgrounds arebrought together (‘opportunity interactions’) or throughmore deliberate action in which people seek to explore theidentities of members of other groups, an action which mightreverberate on how self-identities are read and expressed.Banal interactions, by definition, are the civilities thatpeople express towards each other, including those ofdifferent ethnicity, as a means of negotiating everydaylife. While opportunity and, particularly, growthinteractions were implied as providing the most explicitexpression of building social cohesion ‘the report alsosuggested that (the four types) can take place in a cycle –so that each supports the other and people can move back andforward between the different types’ (DCLG, 2008. p.9).

The premise on which ‘meaningful interaction’ is based isthat its harnessing is likely to lead to greater respect fordifference in ethnically diverse societies. For the mostpart – as Laurier and Philo (2006) and Thrift (2005) haveargued – people do behave courteously towards strangers in

public space. Yet, as Valentine (2008) has also arguedeveryday civilities should not be extrapolated as implyingthe respect for difference. The minor civilities that weengage at a mundane level reflect tolerance which may fallfar short of constituting mutual respect in spite of theircontribution to maintaining social harmony. Such interactionis likely too to be fleeting, constitutive of what Amin andThrift (2002) define as ‘light sociality’ which, howeverimportant to maintaining social harmony, is does not able toembrace any deeper understanding of difference. sense ofintercultural understanding.

To Amin (2002; 2012) fostering intercultural understandingwould mean the creation of spaces of interdependence inwhich cross-cultural engagement can take place. Clearly thisraises the question of how such spaces are created and wherethey are likely to emerge, particularly where so muchinteraction at a mundane level is banal. Two types of suchspace can be defined, those arising serendipitously andthose whose origins are more deliberate. Serendipitousspaces able to foster intercultural dialogue emerge in avariety of local contexts, but, by definition, accidentallyrather than planned. Chance encounters can arise in theworkplace, in consumption spaces, in pubic institutions suchas hospitals, each of which can function as arenas forpositive interaction. For Burnett (2012) meaningful inter-cultural interaction is likely to be rooted in spontaneouscommunity activism – opposing a development proposed to thelocal area, for instance – rather than it is to develop fromdeliberate (probably ‘top-down’) intervention (see alsoPask, 2010). In the recent experience of the area ofGlasgow in which the Hidden Gardens are located both typesof space were to emerge, the Gardens as a planned space anda more spontaneous political space resulting from oppositionto the closure of the local public swimming baths (Paddisonand Sharp, 2007). Grassroots protest did build bridgingcapital between members of different ethnic groups initiallyas united opposition to the closure but which was to havelonger term effects in raising awareness and respect for

difference. It was to such outcomes, but through verydifferent means, that the Hidden Gardens sought to fostergreater intercultural understanding.

Initiating the Hidden Gardens

The Hidden Gardens is a planned green space dedicated topeace and intercultural understanding located in the innercity of Glasgow in neighbourhoods which are characterized byhigh levels of ethnic diversity (Table 1). The choice wasdeliberate – not only was it the most ethnically diversearea in Scotland, which since the 2001 Census has becomemore diverse with the arrival of a significant Romapopulation, but it was characterized by high levels ofrelative deprivation, particularly in Govanhill. A mixed,largely working class area, social relations in it could befragile though by no means fraught. Where grassrootsactivism had helped to create meaningful interaction acrossethnic groups, it existed alongside tensions that could, andon occasion have, bubbled to the surface, as between youthgroups. Developing the Gardens, then, was seen as respondingto the social needs of the area. . Its creation andorchestration

Table 1: Ethnic Composition of Govanhill and East Pollokshields, Glasgow 2001.

Total Population

WhiteScottis

h

OtherWhite

SouthAsian

Black Other

Govanhill 7807 5852(75.0)

743(9.5)

1040(13.3)

45(0.6)

127(1.6)

EastPollokshiel

ds

8097 3593(44.4)

602(7.4)

3739 ( 46.2)

23(0.2)

145 (1.8)

Glasgow 577 869 503 614(87.1)

42745(7.5)

21760(3.8)

1792(0.3)

7958(1.3)

Note: Percentage values in brackets

Source: Derived from Census of Population, 2001

The idea for the Gardens was spearheaded by an arts basedorganization, NVA, and in particular by the vision of itscharismatic founder. Hiswhose vision was to be critical indefining the ethos for the space and its realization. Thechoice of the term ‘gardens’ was deliberate. It was tofunction as a public space in that it would be accessible toall, butA as a garden it was not a park: it was to be a more‘private’ space conveyeding through the notion ofof thegarden how different cultures and religions use horticultureand design to create spaces that function as places ofrefuge and contemplation. In this sense the Gardens were toappeal to abstract sensibilities of interculturalappreciation while simultaneously being a physical space inwhich celebration of cultural (and especially religious)diversity could be given material expression. Clearly, notonly were the Hidden Gardens to be carefully planned but itsintentions were premised in social engineering.

The design of the space was the culmination of two threadsbrought together under the careful project management of NVA– first, a spiritual sense of what it means to engage withan environment on multiple levels, and second, a respect forindividuals rooted deeply in pluralism. The first set ofideas were initiated from NVA’s artistic direction and thelandscape architects approach to design. The garden was inthe first instance, an arts based project, rested in abelief that art can be a technique for generating socialchange. NVA’s earlier work had involved large events inpredominantly rural landscapes that shaped a particularexperience of an environment but that simultaneouslyrecognised the multiplicity of individual engagement withthat landscape in that moment in time. For NVA, the initialideas for the Hidden Gardens built on this trajectory andsought to bring spirituality and landscape together in agarden that explored the historicity and relational

character of the place and allowed individuals to experienceit on their own terms.

The second principle centred on a deep commitment to thepluralism that characterized the local area. Key here totapping into this pluralism was the building in of localparticipation as to how the Gardens should be designedincluding what should be their content. The opinions andsupport of a wide range of local residents – encompassingnot only different ethnic and religious groups but also theyoung and asylum seekers – were sought working through acommunity worker who functioned as an interlocutor betweenthe local community and the NVA. . Theis dialogue helped tointroduce the intentions of NVA and the landscape architectsto local residents in what was an ambitious refurbishment ofa derelict neighbourhood space. More detailed negotiationsbetween local community groups and artists centred on theinstallation of specific artworks and horticulturaldevelopments dedicated to different faiths..

The site itself was inauspicious and has consistently proveda challenge to the visibility of the Gardens even for localresidents: located at the back of a former tram depot, whichitself had been refurbished as a cultural venue, the sitewas in a real sense literally ‘hidden’. Even several yearsafter its opening in 2003 the Gardens were not necessarilywidely known of by local residents – as one intervieweeadmitted ‘I grew up across there (pointing to tenements in anearby street) and saw the Hidden Gardens from the outside,it changed the look of the space, but I never came in here’(Sikh, male 17 years).

Readings of the Gardens

For NVA and the landscape designers the ambitions for theHidden Gardens were visionary and rooted in the ability of

the artist to design a space so as to shape people’s readingof the environment. Specifically this was to be achievedthrough a range of interventions, mainly but notexclusively, centred around the use of plants and trees thatrelated to different faiths. That it was visionary wascritical to both the inception of the Gardens and how it wasto be realized. In other words, while how it could berealized in detail was influenced through communityconsultation, this deliberation was not allowed to changethe fundamental vision set for the Gardens. As a vision itwas aspirational in bringing awareness to different faithsas a means of confirming respect for difference as well asby virtue of its inclusiveness and as a space for peace andcontemplation.

If the aim of the Gardens, particularly for NVA, was toraise awareness of difference whether the space is read insuch a way is of obvious importance.Critical to theseintentions is how users of the Gardens actually read thespace. For some of those visitingfrequenting it thesevisions were borne out in their appreciation of the Gardens.As one respondent who had been brought up locally but whowas now living in Japan expressed it: ‘It is a real garden, it feels like your own gardenbut bigger. It is not too elaborate. It is a place for quiet reflection. You go to the parkto kill time or use up kid’s energy but you would come here for more personal reasons. I live abroad where I am the foreigner. What isneeded is acceptance. I am never going to be Japanese. Difference is good and thatis what makes the Hidden Gardens good. Spiritual meaning is invited here, but is verypersonal. Anyone can be accepted here.’ (Female, 50s)Others were similarly sympathetic with the broad aims

‘The Hidden Gardens are special because they arehidden in an urban space where many people don’t have gardens of their own. It isa serene space in a built up area.’and on why the termthe specific use of the word ‘Gardens’was used rather than as opposed to ‘park’ …Park says ‘activity’ and a garden is a moreenclosed space. A garden is a space to connect. Gardens are associated with family andcommunity…When going into a park people are often very lonely, autonomous, theywant to be alone’. (Male, 20s)The preference for the space as a garden rather than a parkfor some accentuated reasons for appreciating it thatdeviated from its vision, safety.These were by no meansisolated reading of the Gardens. In particular, that theywere intended to function as a garden rather than a park wasthe reason that the safety of the space was such a recurrentobservation ‘The best thing about the gardens is that it is veryfamily oriented. The surrounding is good for babies, very inclusive and I don’t mindcoming by myself as it is very safe. It is not like a park where kids can get onthe road or something.’ (Female, mother, early 30s)While safety is implicit in the Gardens being a refuge ofpeace and contemplation, its foregrounding substitutes forthe original purpose intended for the spaceimplied in theoriginal intentions of the Gardens as a space for thecontemplation of diversity, in fact the reality of the spaceas first and foremost a safe space – unlike nearby parks, afeeling which was implicit, and by some explicitly,expressed – was a primary reason for their visiting it. Thiswas particularly the case for mothers with young children.

Yet such a reading of the space tends to deviate from thevisions set for the Gardens.

If the common accentuation of the safety of the spacerepresents an ‘alternative’ reading of the Gardens, for somevisitors the value of the space were questioned moredirectly. doubts over the ambitions set for the space wereexpressed more explicitly. One interviewee, himself a youthworker working with different faith community elsewhere inthe city, questioned the role of a dedicated space: (While agreeing) that ‘dedicated spaces like theHidden Gardens are needed..(he continued) ‘If you want to create community itmust be intentional….A space in itself is not enough, however, plays andprogrammes are needed too. It must be an intentional process. Spaces labeled in such away alone do not create communities. Things must be in place to bringpeople together. It is naïve to think that space alone will result in community. Youneed to reflect on the difference and diversity in communities and ask ‘how canthese people enrich your life?’ (Male 20s)Such a reading reflects the professional expertise of theinterviewee, though expressed more bluntly it was felt byother users of the space ‘I don’t think that engineering a space is the wayto get interaction. People need to talk – this doesn’t make people interact at all.’continuing ‘I don’t think that the park (sic) causesproblems, it just doesn’t solve any either. Some people aren’t private about faith…..I havenever seen any minority groups, just white people with babies’.

(Male, late teens)The last reading may be an over-statement though theperception that the Gardens had become a ‘white space’ wasexpressed by others, who indeed went on to make a furtherdistinction centred on class: ‘It is a very white middle class space and thatmay put other people off’ (Female, 50s)or as another user expressed it more fulsomely ‘I don’t think that it is possible to dedicate aspace like this to promote multiculturalism. If you look around today youcan see there isn’t much diversity here at all…Unless there are reasons to come,then everyday the Gardens are not really diverse. Faith and difference are notreally approached everyday. You would never come to the Gardens thinking aboutcontemplating faith or anything, you just come because it’s nice and safe’ (Female, 30s)Her reading returns to the theme of safety though arrivingat it has involved the questioning of how the space relatesto diversity and, indeed, whether the usage reflects theethnic diversity of the surrounding neighbourhoods,questioning the essential purpose designed for the Gardens.

Evidently, how the Gardens have become used and areinterpreted varies.These alternative readings of the Gardensreflect different reactions to what were the ambitiousvisions of the originators of the space, NVA and thelandscape designers. For some – probably a relatively few –visiting the Gardens was a contemplative act and in thatsense cam closest to the aspirations of NVA; for probably alarger number, and particularly for parents with youngchildren, the reasons for coming are focused more on issues

other than diversity. Further, forFor neither does the spaceappear to really involve anything more than lightbanalinter-cultural interaction, fleeting courtesies betweendifferent users of the Gardens, but little conversationalinteraction. Being aware of difference might be achievablethrough silent acknowledgement but, as the intervieweeexpressed it, interaction is ultimately dependent on peopletalking to one another. It was this reality that opened updebates to which the artistic vision behind the creation ofthe space had given relatively little attention. . It is howmore meaningful forms of inter-cultural interaction havebeen broached since the opening of the Gardens that hasbecome central to its development.

Developing the Gardens as a Space for Inter-CulturalDialogue

How the Gardens c(sh)ould evolve as a space for inter-cultural dialogue – that is, moving forwards to moremeaningful forms of interaction – has been the source ofongoing debate, and sometimes tension, among the Gardens’management, reflecting wider questions as to how people usepublic green spaces and how to foster dialogue betweenethnic groups whose mundane interaction is so oftenfleetingat most banal. AlliedKey to the ongoing meaning ofthe space and the contribution it could make to addressinglocal inter-cultural relations was the issue ofsustainability; in particular, was the essentially asceticvision of the Gardens sustainable and what would be itscontribution to raising awareness of local residents todifference and its understanding. Thinking about the role ofthe Gardens and their future role was to raise widerquestions that centrecould the Gardens as they werecompleted at their opening offer a meaningful response tolocal diversity? In other words, was the vision underpinningthe creation of the space sufficient to be meaningful overthe longer term? The question reflected the wider politicalquestions surrounding ethnic diversity, in particular those

centring on the politics of recognition and its implications(Fraser,1990).

Both in its initial vision, and how the space was designed,in its implementation the Hidden Gardens was an explicitexpression of recognition. The (local) diversity of faithsand ethnicities was given material expression through thedifferent plantings and other exhibits within the Gardens.More meaningful interactions between different culturalgroups are in part a reflection of an awareness ofdifference and of its meaning – the Gardens, then, sought toraise awareness of the traditions of different religions,East and West, as expressed through horticulture. Thedialogue was ‘silent’ – the plantings and other features‘did the talking’ and thus nurtured a greater awareness ofdifference (and of similarities between multiple ethnicgroups).

The vision was ascetic in its appeal and, if aspirational,it was rooted in the private ways in which public spaces canbe read and appreciated. In fact for some, even if this wasonly a minority, these ideals were incorporated within theirappreciation of the space. Whether this expression ofrecognition would suffice over the longer term became thesource of contestation as to how the Gardens should developand, in particular, how it should relate to the diversityapparent within the local neighbourhoods. For some –particularly for those involved with the day-to-dayoperation of the Gardens – recognition and inter-culturalunderstanding needed to be developed but that there werelimits to what could be achieved particularly in deprivedand increasingly diverse inner city neighbourhoodscharacterized by pockets of relative deprivation or byimmigrant groups, including (for instance) asylum seekerswith particular problems. In effect, Put alternatively, aspace that had been created explicitly to give artisticexpression to the recognition of diversity was to revealtheincreasingly over time showed the limitations athepolitics of recognition has in addressing more deep rooted

structural inequalities characterizing suchthe localneighbourhoods. This, in turn, had implications forcommunity cohesion, questioning how meaningful interactionbetween ethnic groups could be achieved. There is not thespace here to develop the different ways in which thesetensions were to play themselves out. Rather, we will focuson two strategies that were symptomatic of the problemssurrounding the fostering of more meaningful forms ofinteraction and its limitations.

How the Gardens should inform its visitors of the culturaland faith diversity in contemporary Scotland became a keyissue in the running of the space. As the community liaisonofficer employed by NVA expressed it ‘The main tension was about how far theGarden should be a place that people came in and exploredthemselves without any activity being programmed or anything being donewithin the Garden that interfered with people’s personal takeon it…’OMuch debate on the latter much debate centred on theabsence of signage informing visitors of the meaning of thedifferent horticultural installations and how they relatedto different faiths, a problem which was eventually resolvedby the availability of audio-guides. It was a resolutionthat proved welcome to visitors while simultaneouslymaintaining the privacy with which the meanings of theGarden should be appreciated.

These tensions were to be repeated in the debate as towhether the space should be used to stage programmed eventsthatbetween the extent to which the space should be used tocelebrated religious diversity. Those opposed to the holdingof such events pointed not just to their episodic nature,but that by definition the Gardens were an explicitcelebration of such diversity. Yet, in celebratingparticular religious festivals, Diawli and Eid, the

performativity of the event added an extra dimension to thevalue of the space and were to become important dates in thelocal calendar across the ethnic divide. How and whethersuch events, however, contribute to building communitycohesion remains contestedSeveral events have been staged,notably the celebration of Diwali and Eid. Such a usage is amore obvious way of developing cultural understandingbetween faith groups and their organization has attractedsignificant numbers of the local population to events thatwere educative in informing visitors of different culturaland faith practices. Yet, by their nature, events areepisodic and to the more visionary view of the purpose ofthe Gardens less meaningful to building inter-culturalunderstanding than the permanent displays.

Less debatable was that cCelebratory events offered awere anovert way of using the space to foster awareness ofdifference. Judging by the numbers attending the Eidcelebrations tThey also strengthened the connections betweenthe Gardens and the local populationneighbourhoods which,given the misunderstandings and conflict that had previouslysurrounded Eid celebrations locally, was clearly beneficial.Yet, as important as it may be to building awareness ofdifference, the staging of celebratory events would need tobe accompanied by programmes that were of a more sustainednature which ideally would address the more mundane needs oflocal residents., their episodic nature questioned A numberof such programmes have been initiated – notably a motherand toddler group, cookery classes and a gardening group.Their establishment has not been without its difficulties.The cookery classes (for instance) sought to share culinaryrecipes but ensuring that the classes were sufficientlyrepresentative of the different local ethnicities requireditself in effect some engineering .how much emphasis couldbe placed on encouraging such events; nor was it clear, asfor the Gardens themselves, what was the contribution ofevents to fostering dialogue. For several reasons – notablythe development of a more sustained strategy in which thespace could develop inter-cultural dialogue, the ability to

apply for funding (where the financial support needed tomaintain the Gardens was quickly to become an ongoingconcern) and the need to strengthen links with differentgroups within the local community – the development ofprogrammes, one aim of which was to foster inter-culturaldialogue, became the main strategy through which the role ofthe Gardens were to be developed. A variety of programmeshave been introduced – including a mother and toddler group,cookery classes and a gardening group – drawing togethermembers of different ethnic groups in structured ways andwhich by their nature have been able to address moremeaningful forms of interaction.

Conclusions

The relatively short history of the Hidden Gardens raisedimportant questions linking the design and usage of publicspace and the extent to which, and how, it is able to fostermeaningful forms of inter-cultural dialogue. In effectEveryday life in the city is defined by the light socialitythrough which civility towards the other is maintained. Yet,where contact involves inter-ethnic and inter-culturalinteraction toleration by itself is an insufficient basis onwhich community cohesion is likely to flourish. As Valentine(2008) has argued ‘tolerance is a dangerous concept. It isoften defined as a positive attitude, yet it is not the samething as mutual respect’ (p.329). Developing the basis formutual respect requires deeper, more sustained forms ofinteraction, though this begs the question how, other thanserendipitously, such fora are likely to arise. In spite ofthe baggage the term brings, such spaces are more likelythan not to be engineered.

Through its envisioning and installation the Hidden Gardenswas such an engineered space materially addressing thepolitics of recognition of local diversity. Yet, in theattempt it problematised how public space could be designedand used to foster inter-cultural dialogue. These questionscentred on how users could (and should) use a dedicated

space, processes which in giving expression to agency wereto reveal its power to generate alternative readings tothose intended. For some visiting the Gardens was anessentially private event lacking any dialogue but able toachieve meaningful interaction, to open awareness andrespect to difference; for others this was only feasiblethrough verbal dialogue; for yet others, fosteringopportunity interaction was dependent on the holding ofevents celebrating diversity or through programmesdeliberately aimed at bringing diverse groups together. Thetensions between these different routes in attaining durableinter-cultural dialogue became played out in the politics ofthe space. In itself the space directly addresseddifference; but the experience of its usage show how thepolitics of recognition needs constant reaffirmation.

These lessons from the Gardens need to be understood withinthe wider debates of community cohesion under New Labourand, following the election of the Coalition Government in2010, its call for greater integration as the means forestablishing social cohesion (DCLG, 2012). Both expressloosely defined ideologically driven preferences whoselimitations become evident through the realities of localpractice. Building community cohesion through fosteringinter-cultural dialogue is an ongoing challenge particularlyin ethnically mixed neighbourhoods (Becares et al, 2010;Lancee and Dronkers, 2011). The reality is that it isthrough local practice that the building takes place andwhere the messiness of implementing nationally expressedaspirations becomes apparent. If anything this disjuncturehas become more apparent through Coalition policy. The movetowards integration in Coalition policy poses an apparentcontradiction to what spaces such as the Hidden Gardens aretrying to do, to raise awareness of difference. In Creatingthe Conditions for Integration Coalition policy emphasizescommonalities over difference and fails to use the term themulticulturalism throughout. Yet, as in the neighbourhoodsin which the Hidden Gardens was established, multiculturaldiversity, and the issues to which it can give rise,

persist. The switch to more integration in Coalition policyrepresents a different twist to the tensions that existbetween the national context and the local level wheresocial relations are practiced. The Gardens and how theywere used could not be static. To build connections betweenthe multiple groups making up the local community, there wasadded reason as to why the public space needed to bedeveloped to foster dialogue beyond what had been initiallyenvisaged for it. The experience of the Gardens was tohighlight the problems likely to be encountered in fosteringmeaningful interaction that were sustainable.

References

Amin. A. (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city: livingwith diversity, Environment and Planning A, 34, 959-980

Amin, A. (2012) Land of Strangers. Cambridge: PolityAmin, A. and Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban.

Cambridge: Polity.Becares, L, Stafford, M., Laurence, J. and Nazroo, J.

(2010), Composition, Concentration and Deprivation:Exploring their Association with Social Cohesion amongDifferent Ethnic Groups in the UK, Urban Studies, 48 (13),pp. 1-17.

Burnett, J. (2012) Whitening Community Cohesion? London:Institute of Race Relations.

Available at http:www.irr.org.uk/news/whitening-community-cohesion/

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (2007) PromotingInteraction Between People from Different Ethnic Backgrounds. London:Commission for Racial Equality.

Commission on Integration and Cohesion (CIC) (2007) OurShared Future. Wetherby, UK: Commission on Integration andCohesion

Council of Europe (2009) White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: “LivingTogether as Equals in Dignity”. Strasbourg: Council of Europe

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008)The government’s response to the Commission on Integration and

Cohesion. Wetherby, UK: Communities and Local GovernmentPublications

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)(2009a) Guidance on Meaningful Interaction, Wetherby, UK:Communities and Local Government Publications

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)(2009b) Guidance on building a sense of local belonging, Wetherby,UK: Communities and Local Government Publications.

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)(2009c) Cohesion delivery framework, Wetherby, UK;Communities and Local Government

Department of Communities and Local Government (2012)Creating the Conditions for Integration. London: Communities andLocal Government

Dixon, J., Durkheim, K. and Tredoux, C. (2005) Beyond theoptimal contact strategy, American Psychologist, 60 (7), 697-711

Fincher, R and Iveson, K. (2009) Planning and Diversity in the City,Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

Fraser, N. (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: AContribution to the Critique of Actually ExistingDemocracy, Social Text, 25/6, 56-80

Fraser, N. (1995) From redistribution to recognition?Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age, New LeftReview, 1/2, July-August, 68-93

Glover, T.D., Parry, D.C. and Shinew, K.J. (2205) BuildingRelationships, Accessing Resources: Mobilising SocialCapital in Community Garden Contexts. Journal of LeisureResearch, Vol. 37, No. 4, 450-474.

Holland, C., Clark, A. Katz, J. and Peace. S. (2007) Socialinteractions in public spaces. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Home Office (2001) Community cohesion: A report of the IndependentReview Team chaired by Ted Cantle. London: Home Office

Lancee, B. and Dronkers, J. (2011) Ethnic, Religious andEconomic Diversity in Dutch Neighbourhoods: ExplainingQuality of Contact with Neighbours, Trust in theNeighbourhood and Inter-Ethnic Trust, Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies, 37 (4), pp. 597-618

Laurier, E. and Philo, C. (2006) Cold shoulders and napkinshanded:gestures of responsibility, Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers,31 (2), 193-207

Lownsborough, H. and Beuderman, J. (2007) Equally spaced? PublicSpace and interaction between diverse communities. London: Demos

Macey, M. (2009) Multiculturalism, religion and women: Doing Harm byDoing Good? Basingstoke; Palgrave MacMillan

Okin, S.M. (1997) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, BostonReview, 22, 25-8

Paddison, R. and Sharpe, J. (2007) Questioning the end ofpublic space: Reclaiming control of local banal spaces,Scottish Geographical Journal, 123 (2), 87-106

Pask, A. (2010) Public space activism, Toronto andVancouver, in J. Hou (ed.) Insurgent Public Space,London:Routledge, 227-240

Robinson, D. (2008) Community Cohesion and the politics ofcommunitarianism, in Flint, J. and Ronbinson, D. (eds)Community Cohesion in Crisis? New dimensions of diversity and difference.Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 15-33.

Thrift, N. (2005) But malice aforethought: cities and thenatural history of hatred, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers, 30, 133-150

Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference; reflections ongeographies of encounter, Progress in Human Geography, 32(3), 323-337

Vertovec, S. (2007) New Complexities of Cohesion in Britain: Super-Diversity, Transnationalism and Civil-Integration. London: Commissionon Integration and Cohesion

Wood, P. and Landry, C. (2008) The Intercultural City: Planning forDiversity Advantage. London: Earthscan