the new frontier of racism

It is now rare for any British publicpolicy debate to be free of such con-temporary themes as ‘social cohesion’,‘identity’ and ‘community relations’.These issues are now popular with

journalists too, who are all too ready todeliberate the ‘changing face’ of ‘multicultur-al Britain’, the difficulties in integrating cer-tain migrant groups and, above all, thescarcity of housing provision and pressureon public services in areas where there arehigh levels of international migrants.

Concern among the public about asylumand immigration has increased dramaticallyover the last decade too, often overtakingtraditional concerns such as health and edu-cation in opinion polls.

But such discussions are notable less fortheir prevalence and newness than for theirsameness. They sometimes pose as post-mod-ern anxiety about globalisation or ‘fear ofchange’ or may be couched in the languageof economics (pressure on resources), culture(how can we integrate so many diversebeliefs and faiths?) and fair reciprocity (whopays for the welfare state?). But is this notmerely racism dressed up in cooler clothes?

The answer to that question is both yesand no. We would all like to believe thatracism is an anachronism that has no placein a modern, inclusive and tolerant UK.Overt racial discrimination is certainly lesscommon now than it was, and to a largeextent less socially acceptable. This is duenot only to legislation such as the RaceRelations Act of 1976, but also to culturalchange that has blurred the supposed clarity

of racial ‘divides’. Britain, like many liberaldemocracies, has experienced a huge rise inmixed-race relationships and mixed-race chil-dren in recent decades. Of those born inBritain, half of Caribbean-origin men and athird of Caribbean-origin women now havea white partner. And almost half ofCaribbean-origin children have one whiteparent (Modood et al 1997).

But new research considered here sug-gests that attitudes towards asylum andimmigration represent a new frontier ofracism, and pose a new challenge to socialcohesion. This is partly because, unlike tra-ditional racism, hostility towards asylumseekers and immigrants is broadly sociallyacceptable and partly because what drivespublic hostility to immigration and asylumis often not just prejudice, but a quota oflegitimate concern.

It would be a mistake to try to respond toconcerns about asylum and migration in thelanguage of the 1950s: today’s picture is con-siderably more complex. Asylum seekersand migrants to the UK have a greaterdiversity of origin than ever before, and themyriad labels and statuses applicable tomigrants further complicates the picture, asdoes the resultant muddled interactionsbetween UK nationals, asylum seekers,refugees and economic migrants.

Therefore, tackling this ‘new wave’ racismwill require a fundamentally differentapproach to that traditionally pursued bythose on the progressive left and the anti-racism lobby, because it requires politicalleaders to not only challenge the usual

public�policy�research�–�June-August�200780

© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr

The�new�frontier�of�racism

If�the�left�is�to�tackle�emerging�race�issues�effectively,�it�needs�to�be�bolder�in�acknowledging�and�addressing�legitimate�public�concerns,�argues�Naomi�Newman.

myths and assumptions that tend to hoveraround this topic, but to acknowledge thatsome public concerns about immigrationand asylum are rooted in reasonable fears,which cannot immediately be dismissed.

This article charts the extent of racism inBritain today, unpicking its causes and con-sidering an agenda that would enable pro-gressive policymakers to respond effectively.

How�prevalent�are�prejudicedattitudes�and�who�holds�them?In the last 20 years there has been a markeddecline in the number of people who woulddescribe themselves as either ‘very’ or ‘a lit-tle’ racially prejudiced, from 36 per cent in1983 to 28 per cent in 2004 (BSA 2004). Butat the same time, nearly a third of people saythat they are to some degree racially preju-diced. Given the social stigma attached tobeing overtly racist, the real levels are likelyto be higher (Stone and Muir 2007), andindeed many people say that they think lev-els of prejudice are growing (Ipsos MORI2007, BSA 2004). Survey respondents alsoreport being pessimistic about the future ofrace relations.

Thirty-eight per cent of black and minori-ty ethnic (BME) groups experienced racialdiscrimination in 2005, compared to 14 percent of the general population. In the sameyear, while 50,000 racially motivated crimeswere reported to the police, the BritishCrime Survey found that there were 260,000such crimes, implying that many go unre-ported (Stone and Muir 2007).

Different minority communities experi-ence different levels of prejudice. For exam-ple, groups such as asylum seekers, refugeesand travellers experience extreme levels ofhostility, whereas the Chinese community isrelatively well tolerated. And while 85 percent of people said that they would not mindAustralians moving into their area, the figurewas 39 per cent for black Africans and 16per cent for Iraqis (YouGov 2004).

In the wake of concerns about terrorism,attitudes towards Muslims are particularlynegative. The Equalities Review (2007)

found that people are least concerned aboutexpressing prejudice against Muslims.Likewise around a third of British Muslimssay that they have felt under suspicion orhave experienced hostility because of theirreligion (Mirza et al 2007). Anti-Semitism isalso on the increase: in 2006 594 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded by theCommunity Security Trust (CST) – thehighest annual total since the CST startedrecording these incidents in 1984 (CST2007).

Worryingly, hostility towards asylumseekers and travellers is seen as largelysocially acceptable, similar to how prejudiceagainst Ugandan Asians was viewed a gener-ation earlier. This kind of hostility is oftenjustified using economic arguments (dis-cussed further below), which allow people tolegitimise deep prejudices.

Attitudes towards asylum seekers in par-ticular pose a major challenge to attempts toaddress racist attitudes. Prejudice against thisgroup is very freely expressed, often inextremely hostile terms (Lewis 2005, Lewisand Newman 2007). This can rapidly spillover into broader discussions of race; somepeople will even assume any non-white per-son to be an asylum seeker.

It is hard to differentiate between racialprejudice that has its roots in a genuine ten-dency to discriminate on the basis of faith,race or nationality; racial prejudice thatstems from a sense of economic injustice andfinds its place within a racial frame; or astraightforward resistance to change thatdoes not necessarily have origins in racialprejudice but manifests itself as such.

It is this resistance to change that could bedescribed as a legitimate concern. People donot generally like change in their community(Baggini 2007). The large changes to theUK population brought by immigration willunderstandably alarm a large proportion ofthe population. There has been a tendencyon the left to assume that since thesechanges bring so many benefits, the UKpopulation should embrace them unques-tioningly. A story about why these changesare beneficial needs to be told so that the left ©

200

7 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

7 ip

pr

public�policy�research�–�June-August�2007 81

cannot only advance the ideal of a tolerantand multicultural society but also bring pub-lic opinion with it.

So what does affect people’s views? Anindividual’s ethnicity, level of education,age and social class are all factors. A reportby Stonewall (2003) mapping prejudiceacross the UK found that groups inEngland that are particularly likely to saythey feel less positive towards any ethnicgroup include:

• Men (23 per cent), compared withwomen (13 per cent)

• Older people (23 per cent of those aged55+), compared with younger people (16per cent aged 15-54)

• Social class C2DEs (22 per cent), com-pared with ABC1s (15 per cent)

• People with no formal qualifications (26per cent), compared with those educatedto A-level or above (12 per cent)

• Those living in the North East (25 percent), compared with people in London(13 per cent) and the South East (15 percent)

• Conservative voters (25 per cent)• Readers of ‘red-top’ tabloid newspa-

pers: The Sun (25 per cent), Mirror (21 percent) and overall (22 per cent), comparedwith readers of broadsheet newspapers(11 per cent) and middle market tabloids(16 per cent).

ippr’s research found that people from BMEcommunities are largely more welcoming ofimmigrants than the settled white popula-tion. In particular, many empathised with theexperience of immigration. However, thesegroups still experience a degree of concernabout immigration, largely due to fearsabout competition for resources. Prejudice isoverwhelmingly described by these groups ineconomic rather than cultural terms.

Level of education affects views aboutimmigration greatly. A number of surveysindicate that higher levels of education con-tribute to more positive attitudes (Saggar andDrean 2001). One piece of research suggeststhat highly educated people are ten to fifteen

times less likely to express racially intolerantopinions than individuals with low levels ofeducation (Dustmann and Preston 2000).Other research has found that lack of educa-tion is a higher indicator of British NationalParty (BNP) support than poverty or depri-vation (John et al 2006). However, it is diffi-cult to establish to what extent it is educa-tion itself that has this effect, or whether it isdue to higher levels of education being cor-related with greater earning potential (forinstance) and hence less fear of competitionover resources, or associated with differentsocial experiences of ethnic diversity, such aspositive socialising experiences at school anduniversity.

But whatever our level of statistical knowl-edge about which groups hold racist views,understanding what underpins these viewsand differences is far more complicated.

What�underpins�attitudes?The large literature on the origins of racismemphasises the multiplicity of causes, whichare linked to the diversity of attitudesdescribed above. This section picks out themost policy-relevant underlying issues.

The mediaThe extent to which the media influencesattitudes can be overstated. It is true thatreaders of the right-leaning Daily Mail, DailyExpress and Sun are more likely to feel thatrace and immigration are key issues facingthe country than readers of other newspa-pers (particularly The Guardian), even aftercontrolling for differences in the demograph-ic profile of the readers (Duffy and Rowden2005). However, people tend to choose apaper that reflects their views in the firstplace (Greenslade 2005), so the relationshipbetween content and attitudes is more circu-lar than linear.

Nonetheless, there are several ways inwhich the media does affect public discourse.Despite the fact that people perceive much ofthe tabloids’ coverage to be biased, the lan-guage the public uses about asylum seekersis imbued with the hostile language of the


© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr

headlines of these newspapers. In theabsence of countering information, themedia can increase public tolerance of suchlanguage and reinforce the idea that issuessuch as immigration present problems(Lewis 2005). The media sets the terms forthe public debate and can provide the storiesand material to justify prejudices, presentingthem as accurate and independent, which isnot always the case – particularly in relationto asylum (Valentine and McDonald 2004).

The local media can play an importantrole in changing or affirming attitudes, as itis closely linked with the communities itserves; it also reflects public opinion to someextent (Finney 2003), and it tends to bemore trusted than the national media.Where there has been positive coverage ofBME communities, attitudes towards themtend to be warmer (Lewis 2005).

The reverse is also true. Lewis (2005)cites a case in Weymouth, Dorset, whererumours were started about the establish-ment of a local asylum accommodation cen-tre. Local protests were widely covered inthe media both locally and nationally. As aresult, people living in Weymouth becamemuch more concerned about asylum issues.The immediate impact was an increase inracist attacks on foreign students, a fear ofasylum seekers being housed in Weymouth,and considerable distrust of central govern-ment.

The role of politics and policiesPolitical discourse forms the backdropagainst which public debate takes place, andcan determine whether an issue is deemed tobe a problem (Lewis 2005). Messages fromcentral government also play an importantrole in setting the context in which informa-tion about local issues is interpreted (Baueret al 2001, Saggar and Drean 2001). The lan-guage and messages used by politicians at alllevels significantly affect attitudes, in the waythat they frame the debate (Lewis andNewman 2007).

Government statements are widely disbe-lieved, or interpreted as an attempt to coverup a problem. Harsh talking has not worked

– each attempt to toughen up the languageand system has led to a belief that the ‘prob-lem’ is worse than is acknowledged by theGovernment (Lewis 2005).

Devolved administrations and localauthorities can make a significant differenceto the attitudes of local people (Lewis 2005),although this is also dependent on the localcontext. Policies to encourage cohesion andinteraction clearly make a difference, as theymaximise opportunities for ‘meaningful con-tact’ (see below), and strong local politicalleadership can create an environment inwhich hostility is successfully challenged(ibid).

Specific policies also affect attitudes andperceptions. For instance, individuals takingpart in research for ippr claimed to haveassumed that asylum seekers were put indetention centres because they had commit-ted criminal acts (Lewis 2005).

Regional and local-level influencesThere are clear variations in attitudesbetween different geographical areas, as wellas between different social groups. For exam-ple, people living in London and Scotlandare least likely to have hardened prejudicialattitudes (Ipsos MORI 2007), while peoplein the North East, West Midlands and theSouth West have shown the most oppositionto multi-culturalism, immigration and asy-lum (Ipsos MORI 2003). While 73 per centof people living in London agreed that it is agood thing that Britain is a multi-culturalsociety, only 39 per cent living in the NorthEast thought this.

A number of different factors influencethe development of attitudes at a local level.Among young people, for example, key fac-tors have been found to be:

• High unemployment and bad housing• Negative portrayals of refugees in the

local press• Inflammatory statements made by local

politicians• BNP activity in the local area• Ill-planned dispersal of asylum seekers• Little previous settlement by BME com- ©

200

7 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

7 ip

pr


munities • High levels of ethnic segregation in housing• Overstretched public services, particularly

healthcare and education• Failure by the authorities to pick up on

growing tensions and to protect victimseffectively (Hewitt 2003 cited in Rutter2006).

An important local-level influence is theextent to which an individual has the oppor-tunity to mix with people from other ethnicgroups. Attitudes tend to be most hostile inplaces where there are few people fromminority ethnic groups, or where communi-ties are residentially segregated (Lewis 2005,Muir 2007). This leads to a lack of ‘mean-ingful contact’. In contrast, where someone iswell acquainted with an individual from adifferent ethnic group to themselves, thistends to decrease their prejudice towardsother groups in general.

Contact theory focuses on the distributionof immigrants in a particular area, and on howmany and what kind of personal contactssomeone has with newcomers (Fetzer 2000). Ithas been shown that the level of contact needs

to be relatively high to have a positive effectand be ‘meaningful’, for example, by being adinner guest at someone’s house. In contrast,simply passing someone on the street canincrease fear and hostility. Negative individualencounters tend to produce powerful negativegeneralisations, but positive encounters do notgenerally work in the same way (Valentineand McDonald 2004).

In areas with little or no history of minori-ty community settlement, tensions are likelyto be high if there is rapid social change, forexample when large numbers of migrantworkers from Europe arrive. This may not

be about racism but may be the result of acommon resistance to change (Baggini 2007).

Changing immigration and asylum patterns To some extent rising public concerns aboutasylum and immigration correlate with anincrease in migration, although it is worthnoting that public perceptions of the scaleand impact of migration far outstrip reality.Furthermore, concerns about immigrationand asylum can lead to wider negative atti-tudes towards other minority communities.People from minority ethnic communitiestaking part in ippr’s research were concernedthat the hostile media and public debateabout immigration was influencing widerracism. Equally, white British-born groupsfelt that they themselves were becomingmore racist because of the debate. But theyoften justified this by mentioning communitytensions and the cultural impacts of immigra-tion. For example, 66 per cent of people in arecent ippr poll thought that immigrationleads to greater tensions between differentethnic groups, and 29 per cent thought thatimmigration brings no benefits (Lewis andNewman 2007).

These concerns are often expressedthrough talk of population growth and thefeeling that we are an island nation with alimited capacity, and will be unable to copewith more people (Lewis 2005). Fifty-sevenper cent of those polled for an ippr studythought that overcrowding is one of the dis-advantages of immigration (Lewis andNewman 2007). Anecdotal stories of peoplewho move out of certain areas to get awayfrom minority ethnic communities canincrease the sense of an enclave under siege(Lewis 2005).

Fairness and resource allocationPrejudice and hostility are frequentlyexpressed in relation to entitlements fromthe British welfare system and competitionfor employment. Even in London, wherethere is a relatively high level of tolerance fordiversity, people express concerns aboutnon-white groups taking advantage of thewelfare system and receiving preferential


© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr

66�per�cent�of�people�in�a�recent�ipprpoll�thought�that�immigration�leads�togreater�tensions�between�differentethnic�groups,�and�29�per�cent�thoughtthat�immigration�brings�no�benefits

treatment in terms of benefits, housing andhealth care (Valentine and McDonald 2004).These attitudes are partly driven by the eco-nomic concerns discussed below, and percep-tions that migrants do not contribute eco-nomically but put pressure on public servic-es (CRE 2007).

There is a widespread belief that peoplecome to the UK to access the benefits sys-tem and this can then spill over to influenceviews about settled minorities. For example,56 per cent of people think asylum seekerscome to the UK for the welfare system, and78 per cent think immigration puts morepressure on public services (Lewis andNewman 2007).

These fears are exacerbated by widely-held beliefs that migrants and BME commu-nities in general are given preferential accessto resources such as housing and welfarebenefits. For example, 72 per cent of whiterespondents to a poll agreed that ‘minorityethnic communities receive too much helpand support from the Government’, and 66per cent thought that ‘too much is done tohelp immigrants’ (Ipsos MORI 2000).

There is a deeper sense of injustice linkedto these attitudes, particularly in relation tothe allocation of scarce welfare resources.For example, a study of community relation-ships in the East End of London found thatthere is a historic context for this sense ofunfairness. White working class respondentsexpressed resentment that despite the welfarestate being some kind of reward for theirwar effort, relative newcomers such as theBangladeshi community are given new hous-ing. The Londoners felt that this under-mined the notion of reciprocity which tothem sits at the heart of the welfare system(Dench et al 2006).

Looking at relative deprivation offers a use-ful framework for analysing these attitudes.This measure can often equate to whatHernes and Knudsen (1992) describe as a‘feeling of injustice when others receive morethan they “should” in relation to their efforts,their needs, their rank […] whether such adifference is based upon a real difference oran assumed one’. People react negatively

when others receive something they are per-ceived not to deserve – for example, whenthey obtain benefits without working forthem (Fetzer 2000). ippr’s research found thatrelative deprivation can produce discontentand racial prejudice even where there is noevidence of an actual negative economicimpact from immigration or having BMEgroups present in a community (Lewis 2005).

ippr also found that settled BME commu-nities as well as white British people are con-cerned that the arrival of migrants threatensresources, in particular employment.Unsurprisingly it is those who are most vul-nerable to competition for resources, particu-larly less-well-off groups and young people,who are most likely to express this fear(Lewis 2005).

Housing is a particularly contentiousissue. A poll for ippr found that 72 per centof people think that immigration puts morepressure on housing (Lewis and Newman2007). Young people may feel resentful thatthey are kept off the property ladder, whileolder people may worry that communitiesare being broken up by unfair housing poli-cies. In particular there is a concern that chil-dren have to move away from their parents’area when they move out of home (Lewis2005). There is also a widespread belief thatasylum seekers are given priority for receiv-ing housing.

Cultural changeWidespread public anxiety about culturaland social change also affects attitudestowards minorities. A majority of white par-ticipants in ippr’s research, particularly thosefrom older age groups, felt that traditionalBritish identity is being threatened byincreased migration, to the extent that manypeople described a sense of being in a ‘whiteminority’ (Lewis 2005).

Where certain groups are deemed to poseboth an economic and a cultural threat, theyare particularly resented (Abrams andHouston 2006). There is a perception thateconomic resources are available for the cele-bration of minority cultures – includingthose of the devolved British regions – at the ©

200

7 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

7 ip

pr


expense of traditional British (or, more accu-rately, English) culture and values. Peoplefrequently blame this on political correctness,which is sometimes seen as being intendedto prevent the white working class fromexpressing ‘traditional’ views (Lewis 2005).

People can be resentful of minority groupsretaining their religious customs, dress andlanguage, accusing such groups of not mak-ing an effort to ‘fit in’. This may be per-ceived as a threat to British culture and val-ues, and sometimes even as a deliberate chal-lenge. Some feel that minorities invite resent-ment by making themselves conspicuous.

Change itself can also be a catalyst fortension. It is a natural part of the humancondition not only to resist change, but to besuspicious of the ‘other’. We cannot expectpeople to welcome change and differencewith open arms without explaining why theyshould. There needs to be a stronger storyabout where the UK is going and the pur-pose of this change.

MythsThe public’s knowledge of different minoritycommunities is poor. Some simply do notknow basic facts – such as the distinctionsbetween different categories of migrants andsettled minority communities – whereas oth-ers believe and pass on grossly distortedmyths. These myths tend to be based onstereotypes, and are both highly compellingand widely believed. For example, there is awidespread belief that asylum seekers aregiven free shoes, clothes, and even driving les-sons – alongside priority access to social hous-ing (Lewis 2005, Lewis and Newman 2007).

Some of these myths have a basis in fact.For example, in Birmingham, ippr’s researchparticipants complained that there was a spe-cial queue set up for asylum seekers in thelocal post office. It is true that a differentqueue was set up in response to complaintsabout the time taken to provide asylum seek-ers with National Asylum Support Service(NASS) benefits. However, this was inter-preted as yet another example of asylumseekers being given preferential treatment(Lewis 2005).

People regularly overestimate the propor-tion of the population that consists of asylumseekers, migrants, and minority ethnic popu-lations (Saggar and Drean 2001). For exam-ple, a recent poll for ippr found that 20 percent of people think that more than one mil-lion asylum seekers live in the UK (Lewisand Newman 2007). The actual figure is inthe region of 60,000.

The media and politicians are influentialbut personal experience is also critical to theformation of these sorts of myths and beliefs.This generally occurs where rumour, suppo-sition and anecdote are presented as facts.

Anecdotes relayed by ippr’s focus groupparticipants describe such things as a friendwho did not get the council house she want-ed ‘because of asylum seekers’, and a friendbeing turned away at the doctors because hewas told it was an evening session for ‘for-eigners only’. One woman told how herfriend had sold a car to an asylum seekerwho had paid for it using state benefits. Thestory made a strong impression on the restof the group, one of whom said that he hadread about these things but never believedthem until then (Lewis 2005).

Lack of social mixing and poor integra-tion of minority groups also feeds into thedevelopment of myths and rumours. Forexample, in Tower Hamlets, London, thesegregation between the white andBangladeshi communities leads to mistakenassumptions by the latter that the majority ofwhite people are comfortably rich, whilemost Bangladeshis are dependent on welfare(Dench et al 2006).

People in authority are perceived as pow-erful, and the information they give out iswidely believed. Frontline service deliverystaff are in a strong position to spread orrepudiate rumours. This includes negativemessages – for example, in Birmingham, alocal councillor publicly blamed asylumseekers for the housing shortage (Lewis2005). In an ippr focus group, a participantfrom a minority ethnic background recount-ed how he had been told to pretend to be anasylum seeker by local job centre staff, as hewould then access benefits more quickly.


© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr

It is a mistake, though, to think that sim-ply providing people with correct informa-tion to counter myths is sufficient to provokea change in attitudes. In ippr’s recent poll,

people who did not know the correct defini-tion of the term ‘asylum seeker’ and whowere more likely to be hostile in their atti-tudes, did not necessarily change their mindsonce they had been presented with the realfacts. Twenty-eight per cent of people saidthat knowing the true definition made theirview about asylum seekers either slightly ormuch more favourable, but 66 per cent saidthat it did not change their views at all(Lewis and Newman 2007). Indeed, ippr’sresearch found that in some cases, givingpeople true facts makes them even more hos-tile (ibid), depending on the level of pre-existing hostility: facts may change the atti-tudes of people who are fairly indifferent tothe issues but will not affect the views ofthose who are particularly hostile.

The�dos�and�don’ts�foraddressing�these�issuesThere are no clear or immediate answers tothe issues outlined above. But what is clearis that there is a new problem that cannot beaddressed with old solutions. People need tofeel that their current concerns are beingaddressed, but what would this mean inpractice?

At a local government and regional level itmeans ensuring that the government repre-sentatives with whom the public frequentlycomes into contact are well informed andtrained to respond to fears and concernsconstructively. For the pro-asylum and immi-gration lobby, it means taking a line that notonly emphasises the humanity of asylumseekers, refugees and other migrants interms of their rights, needs, aspirations anddaily challenges, but that also acknowledges

their humanity in terms of their potentialfailings and avoids the assumption that allasylum seekers, refugees and migrants are,by definition, good people (Lewis andNewman 2007).

Unfounded concerns must also beaddressed. Small-scale local activity can aidconsiderably in this. Again the use of trustedand public-facing staff is also key. Polls showthat the public consistently rates doctors asbeing the most trusted professionals (IpsosMORI 2006). Teachers, the police and peo-ple on the street are more trusted to tell thetruth than either politicians or journalists.These trusted groups often come into con-tact with the public on an individual basis,and in their local area. Ensuring that theyhave access to the correct information andunderstand issues concerning race, immigra-tion and asylum can therefore play a keyrole in a strong communications strategy.

In many cases meaningful contact is aneffective tool for changing attitudes, but, aspreviously discussed, it has its limitations. Itmust not be too brief or superficial. Contactwithout real engagement will not fosterrespect and can even exacerbate prejudice(Valentine and McDonald 2004). It shouldalso be acknowledged that acceptance ofother groups on a local level may fail tochange someone’s attitude to a whole groupsince they may see the individuals they aremixing with as the ‘exception’ (Muir 2007).

There are many instances of successfullocal efforts to promote meaningful contactthat have resulted in the reforming orreshaping of local attitudes, which should beemulated elsewhere. Below are some exam-ples.

Bhavnani et al (2005) cite the case of ananti-racist youth project on a housing estatein Bermondsey, London. Led by a blackfemale youth worker, this project involvedopen discussions among local young peopleabout racist feelings. Racist incidents on thehousing estate declined by 46 per cent overthree years, against an increase inBermondsey as a whole during that time.

ippr research in Scotland found that manypeople in Glasgow perceived asylum seekers ©

200

7 T

he A

utho

r. J

ourn

al c

ompi

latio

n ©

200

7 ip

pr


Teachers,�the�police�and�people�on�thestreet�are�more�trusted�to�tell�the�truththan�either�politicians�or�journalists.

to have been brought into the city with littlelocal consultation or preparation and conse-quently there was considerable hostility.However, where effort was made to integrateasylum seekers with residents, the indige-nous population’s attitudes became morepositive (Lewis 2006).

As well as new initiatives or frameworks,existing local networks can provide excellentopportunities for interaction. ippr’s researchin Scotland, for example, found that youngpeople who had attended an ethnicallymixed school tended to have more positiveattitudes towards migration. Parents of chil-dren at such schools also said they learnt alot from their children about different cul-tures, either because their children hadfriends from different ethnic groups orbecause they brought home informationfrom their religious education or citizenshipclasses (Lewis 2006).

Where meaningful contact is not possi-ble, either because there are few BMEgroups in an area or because there is simplytoo much segregation, providing contextcan also be powerful. It provides peoplewith a frame on which to shape their atti-tudes, meaning they will be less likely tohave their attitudes shaped by fear andmyths. ippr has found that informationstands the most chance of being effectivewhen it is contextualised. Recent researchfound that presenting additional informa-tion on why asylum seekers are here andwhat they might face in their own countryallowed people to empathise more andunderstand asylum seekers’ motives better.When respondents to an ippr poll were toldthat ‘Many asylum seekers would return totheir home country if the political situationthere allowed’, 59 per cent of people saidthat this made their attitude towards asy-lum seekers more favourable (Lewis andNewman 2007). These findings can be usedto better understand strategies for changingwider attitudes to race.

If there is to be any reshaping of the cur-rent trend in UK race relations, strong politi-cal leadership will be required. This hasbeen demonstrated at a regional level. The

fact that Scottish attitudes on asylum, forexample, tend to be more positive than thosein England or Wales can be partly attributedto the language used by the ScottishExecutive, which has generally been morepositive than the language coming fromWestminster (Lewis 2005, 2006). For exam-ple, the Scottish Executive has actively pro-moted anti-racist discourse through the‘Fresh Talent Initiative’ and the ‘OneScotland’ campaign.

For strong political leadership to work at anational level, it needs to be grounded in aclear narrative about what this countryshould be and the direction it should be tak-ing. Within Gordon Brown’s professed inter-est in pursuing a more concrete idea of whatit means to be British is an opportunity for astory of Britain based on shared values, mul-tiple identities and multiple cultures. Such astory would not only prepare concerned cor-ners of the public for change, but provide acontext in which to absorb it. This storyneeds to translate into clear structural policythat implements these ideas at every levelalongside the clear leadership necessary tosoothe concern.

Naomi Newman is a Research Fellow at ippr.

Note: web references correct May 2007

Abrams D and Houston DM (2006) Equalities, Diversityand Prejudice in Britain: 2005 National Survey London:Equalities Review

Baggini J (2007) Welcome to Everytown: A journey into theEnglish Mind London: Granta

Bauer TK, Lofstrom M and Zimmerman KF (2001)Immigration Policy, Assimilation of Immigrants and Natives’Sentiments towards Immigrants: Evidence from 12 OECD-Countries Working paper 33, San Diego: University ofCalifornia

British Social Attitudes (2004) The 21st Report London:Sage

British Social Attitudes Surveys, available at www.britso-cat.com

Bhavnani R, Safia Mirza H and Meetoo V (2005) Tacklingthe roots of racism: Lessons for success York: Joseph RowntreeFoundation, available at: www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/pdf/0535.pdf

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (2007) PromotingInteraction between people from Different Ethnic BackgroundsLondon: CRE (forthcoming)

Community Security Trust (CST) (2007) AntisemiticIncidents Report 2006 London: Community SecurityTrust, available at: www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents_Report_06.pdf

Dench G, Gavron K and Young M (2006) The New East


© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr

End: Kinship, Race and Conflict London: Profile BooksDuffy B and Rowden L (2005) You are what you read?

London: Ipsos MORI Dustmann C and Preston I (2000) ‘Attitudes to minority

ethnic communities, ethnic context and local decisions’Economic Journal 111 (470): 353-393

Equalities Review (2007) Fairness and Freedom: The FinalReport of the Equalities Review London: HMSO

Fetzer JS (2000) Public Attitudes toward Immigration in theUnited States, France and Germany Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Finney N (2003) The Challenge of Reporting Refugees andAsylum Seekers London: ICAR, available at:www.icar.org.uk/pdf/pubram001.pdf

Greenslade R (2005) Seeking scapegoats: The coverage of asy-lum in the UK press Asylum and Migration WorkingPaper 5, London: Institute for Public Policy Research

Hernes G and Knudsen K (1992) ‘Norwegians’ attitudestowards new immigrants’, Acta Sociologica 35: 123-139

Hewitt Rl (2003) Asylum Seeker Dispersal and CommunityRelations: An analysis of Developmental Strategies London:Centre for Urban and Community Research,Goldsmiths College

ICM (2001) Asylum Seekers Poll, available at: www.icmre-search.co.uk/reviews/2001/guardian-asylum-poll-may-2001.htm

Ipsos MORI for CRE (2007) Race Relations 2006: AResearch Study, available at www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/cre2.shtml

Ipsos MORI for The Royal College of Physicians (2006)Public Trust in Doctors is Still High, available atwww.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/rcp.shtml

Ipsos MORI (2000) Britain Today – Are We an IntolerantNation?, available at: www.mori.com/polls/2000/rd-july.shtml

Ipsos MORI (2005) Presentation by Ben Page toCommission for Racial Equality conference ‘Buildingan Integrated society’, 12 July

John P, Margetts H, Rowland D and Weir S(2006) TheBNP: The roots of its appeal Democratic Audit, HumanRights Centre, University of Essex

Lewis M (2005) Asylum: Understanding public attitudesLondon: Institute for Public Policy Research

Lewis M (2006) Warm Welcome: Understanding public attitudesto asylum seekers in Scotland: London: Institute for PublicPolicy Research

Lewis M and Newman N (2007) Communicating AsylumLondon: Institute for Public Policy Research (forth-coming)

Mirza M, Senthilkumaran A and Ja’far Z (2007) BritishMuslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism London:Policy Exchange

Modood T, Berthoud R, Lakey J, Nazroo J, Smith P, VirdeeS and Beishon S (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversityand disadvantage London: Policy Studies Institute

Muir R (2007) Community Cohesion in three LondonBoroughs London: Government Office for London/ippr (forthcoming)

Muir R (2007) The New Identity Politics London: Institutefor Public Policy Research

Rutter J (2006) Refugee Children in the UK Maidenhead:Open University Press

Saggar S and Drean J (2001) British Public Attitudes andMinority Ethnic Communities London: Cabinet Office andPerformance and Innovation Unit

Stone L and Muir R (2007) Who are we? Identities inBritain 2007 London: Institute for Public PolicyResearch

Stonewall (2003) Profiles of Prejudice – The Nature ofPrejudice in England: In-depth analysis of findings London:Stonewall

Valentine G and McDonald I (2004) Understanding preju-dice: Attitudes towards minorities London: Stonewall

YouGov 2004 survey on attitudes to immigration, available at:www.yougov.co.uk/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/pdf/OMI040101093

© 2

007

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

007

ippr


the new frontier of racism

Documents