Sandro CattaCin

WHY not “GHEttoS”? tHE GoVErnanCE oF MiGration

in tHE SPLintErinG CitY

Willy Brandt Series of Working Papersin International Migration and Ethnic Relations

2/06

Ma

LM

ö U

niV

Er

Sit

Y •

iME

r2

00

6

The Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations is published by the School of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER), established in 1997 as a multi- and transdiscipli- nary academic education and research field at Malmö University.

The Working Paper Series is a forum for research in, and debate about, issues of migration, ethnicity and related topics. It is associated with IMER’s guest professorship in memory of Willy Brandt. Thus, the Series makes available original manuscripts by IMER’s visiting Willy Brandt professors.

The guest professorship in memory of Willy Brandt is a gift to Malmö Uni- versity financed by the City of Malmö, and sponsored by MKB Fastighets AB. The Willy Brandt professorship was established to strengthen and deve- lop research in the field of international migration and ethnic relations, and to create close links to international research in this field.

The Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations is available in print and online.

MaLMö UniVErSitY

SE-205 06 MalmöSweden

tel: +46 40-665 70 00

www.mah.se

Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in international Migration and Ethnic relations2/06

Published2006

EditorMaja Povrzanovic Frykmanmaja.frykman@imer.mah.se

Editor-in-ChiefBjörn Fryklund

Published bySchool of International Migration and Ethnic RelationsMalmö University205 06 MalmöSweden

2/06 Sandro Cattacin. 2006. Why not “ghettos”? The governance of migration in the splintering city.

ISSN 1650-5743 / Online publicationwww.bit.mah.se/MUEP

�

Sandro Cattacin

WHY NOT “GHETTOS”? THE GOVERNANCE OF MIGRATION IN THE SPLINTERING CITY

Neighbourhoodsareledtoconstructthemselvesinahomogeneousway,inasortofcommunityinthesenseofaggregatedgroups,notnecessaryonlyintermsofethnicitybutintermsofsocio-economiccharacteristics.Thisreflectsmigration,socio-economic difference and the dynamic of the city development. Theseneighbourhoodshaveapotentialofself-regulationandstabilisationofthecitythatisoftenunderestimated.Thus,Ithinkthatthemixtureofacityistheresultofmobility,butcannotbethestartingpoint,inparticularinmodern,flexibilisedsocietiesinwhichweakidentitiessearchforstabilizingcommunities.

Keywords:aggregatedneighbourhoods,migrationandidentity,urbanlife

Thecityattractsdifference:differentwaysoflife,differenttrajectoriesanddifferent socio-economic positions.1 Its anonymity promises liberty andattracts people in search of new opportunities. The city simultaneouslycombines the promise of indifference toward diversity (as outlined bySimmel2001[1900])andofapossiblesocialascension,therebycreatingaparticularattractionforpeopleonthemove.Thus,inthecity,wefindtheeliteofthe“creativeclass”(Florida2004)andsociety’spoorinsearchofabetterfuture.Inthissense,thecity,parexcellence,attractsmigrants.

Traditionally, the inclusion process of migrants has been analysed byurban sociology in two major ways. The first analysis, made by socialhygienists, adopted a cultural explanation. It underlined the perversity ofself-exclusionarymechanismsamongpeoplewhodidnotadoptabourgeoiswayoflifeinthecity(forinstanceMearns1970[1883])andpromotedanegative visionofbadneighbourhoods, segregated spaces andghettos. Inshort,theybecamestigmatisedareas.

Not really liberated from the social hygienist’s prejudices, Simmeladded an alternative explanation. For Simmel (2001 [1900])), people

�

living in segregated areas of the city were simply unable to leave theirpeasantbackgroundbehindandwould ratherchoose to reproduce livingconditions similar to those of their former peasant world in their urbanneighbourhoods.Lackinghuman,economicandsocial resources,yet stillneedingcommunitarianrelationshipsorsomekindofmechanicsolidarity,theywereunabletoseizetheperspectivesandpotentialoffreedomofferedbythecity.

WithPark(Park1928),thesegregationanalysisintroducedastructuralelement that explained segregated spaces in terms of the territorialconstitutionofa city rather than the choicesof themigrants themselves.Thecityorganisesitselfinordertoputmigrantsandpoorpeopleinitslessattractiveareas.Thereisadynamicofexclusionrelatedtosocio-economicpositionsinwhichtherichtakeupthebestplacesofthecityandconfinethepoortothesegregatedspaces.Anti-segregationpolicies,then,becamethepoliticalwayoffightingagainstasystematicexclusion;achoiceofpolicythatisstilltheprincipalmeasureofsegregationinmanyoftoday’scities.2

TheseanalysesoftheChicagoSchoolofUrbanSociologyreachedaturningpoint with the rediscovery of communities in the cities as self-regulatedspacesofsolidarity.Whyte’sStreet Corner Society(Whyte1943)reflectedthisnewpointofview.Itinterpretedthecity’sculturallyhomogeneousspacesoccupiedbypeopleofalowersocio-economicstatusnotonlyasriskareas,butalsoasareasproducingreciprocityandpotentiallystabilizingthecity.3Insegregatedspaces,infact,socialcohesion(andcontrol)ismuchhigherand can affect people’s capacity to survive, ontologically speaking, frombothmaterialandpsychologicalpointsofview.4Fromthematerialpointofview,themorecommunitiesarehomogeneous,theeasiertheexchangeofservicesinanon-monetaryeconomybecomes.Psychologicallyspeaking,identityisnotsystematicallychallengedandtherecognitionprocessofone’sidentityisfacilitatedwithinhomogeneouscommunities.

Thesefacts leadmetothink,alongwithDear(DearandFlusty2001),that homogeneous spaces that have a high concentration of people anda low socio-economic status are not problematic as such. In contrast totheChicagoSchool,Ithinkthattheycanbeorganisedaselementswhichstabiliseurbandynamicsthataresubmittedtoever-changingpopulations,criminalityandviolence.Thesespacesalsoallowtheinterveningbodiesinthesocialandhealthsectorstofocusontheirusers.

From Segregated Neighbourhoods to Aggregated Neighbourhoods?Whynot“ghettos”?Withthis,admittedly,provocativequestion, I intendto reconsider the internal dynamic of aggregation in neighbourhoods in

�

modern societies. I assume that in societies runby individualistic values,pluralistwaysoflivingandflexibleorganisation,“ghettos”5indemocraticandopensocietiesmighthaveadifferentrolethaninthepast:arolewhichwouldbelessfocusedonanexternalexclusionorsegregationandmoreonaninternalre-appropriationofsensefromtheinhabitantsofthesesplaces.

Inotherwords,whileSimmeldoesnotseethefunctionalityofsegregatedspaces, and the Chicago School wants to dismantle them, we are of theopinionthattheirexistenceisstillrelevantandthatcombatingthemcreatesmore problems than solutions. In order to support this hypothesis, I amgoingtoexaminethetransformationoftheexternalcauseofthecreationofaggregatedneighbourhoodsandtheirinternalorganisation.

Fromanexternal contextualpointof view, significant societal changesleadmetothisconsideration.Thepluralisationofsocietyandtheflexibilisedeconomyboththreatenthesocietalandidentitycohesion;theresponsibilityforwhichdependson individuals.This phenomenonof individualisationandflexibilisationthuscomplicatestheintegrationofthewholesociety.Asmanyauthorshaveshown,wewitnessagrowingnumberofpeoplewhoarebadlyintegrated,botheconomicallyandsocially(seeforexampleCastel1995;Paugam1991).

In this context, we assume that aggregation in urban spaces has afunction.Fromthepointofviewofthe internalorganisation,threemainargumentssupportthisidea.Inunderliningthatmigrationtothecitycannotbe stopped, I will develop the idea of aggregated neighbourhoods as anopportunity(a);continuebyunderliningthat,inthesespaces,identitiesareprotectedfrommodernsociety’scontinuouschallengeofvaluesystems(b);andfinally,Ipointoutthatthesespaceshaveastrongcapacitytoactandtosolveconcreteproblemsthroughtheirself-organisation(c).Withthesethreearguments,Idiscussthefactthatthisself-regulatingcapacityisdependentontheotherinhabitantsandtheirpoliticalrepresentativesrecognisingtheseneighbourhoodsasapositivepartofthecity.Suchrecognitioncouldopenthedoorsforeffectivepublicpolicyinterventions(d).

Point a) Although aggregated neighbourhoods are still imposed by thecontextual situation and created by economic, legal, social or racialinequalities, we nowadays assume that these kinds of areas have amaterialandsymbolicutilityforthepeoplelivingthere.Firstly,aggregatedneighbourhoods represent the entry point for many migrants in the city.They find people they know and communities that can help and sustainthefirststepsofeconomicandsocialintegrationintocitylife.Inparticular,undocumented migrants depend on such neighbourhoods, as they gaina feeling of security (Achermann and Chimienti 2005). Even in smaller

�

citieswithoutsegregatedspaces,peoplehavingthesamerootsandsocio-economic backgrounds can be found in common spaces like the railwaystations, restaurantsor clubs.6Atfirst glance sucha concentration couldbeseenasbeingproblematic.Butinfact,ifadynamicviewistaken,theseplaces not only lessen the impact of migration through communitarianaccommodations, but are also places from which steps outside of thatneighbourhood can be tested. In other words, migrants not only find awarm and loyal surrounding, but also an island, referring to Hirschman(1970),fromwhich“exit”and“voice”strategiesarepossible.Whileexitmightmeanareturntothehomecountryandafailedmigrationproject,itwouldalsomeanbeingaccompaniedbythecommunityofbelonging.A“voice”strategycouldmeanthat,afterhavingstabilisedthepositionintheneighbourhood,oneentersamobilityperspectivethatcanbeeitherspatialorsocial.Aggregatedneighbourhoodscanbethestartingpointandtheendpointofamigrant’shistory.Theygivemigrantsachancetofeeltheirwayintoabetterlife.

Inasimilarorderofideas,otherauthorshaveshownthatincertaincaseshomogeneous, socially disqualified neighbourhoods can help to supportexternalstigmatisation:theirinhabitantsavoidbeingconfrontedbyexternalstigmatisation,whichhastheeffectofprotectingtheirself-esteem.Paugam,forinstance(Paugam2000),describesthissituationintermsof“organisedmarginality”,i.e.aframewhichallows

the symbolic reconstruction of a cultural framework that may betoleratedinaspacecontrolledbytheexperienceofexchanges,ofdailyactivities and, sometimes, thanks to the resources of imagination.Their is a form of positive identity through the experienced spaceof life, potentially containing a mixed history of conflicts, failures,celebrationsandhappiness.Nevertheless,itisnotamatterofwishingtochangestatus,butratheranindividualadaptationtoaconditionthat can be considered as the borders of social exclusion (Paugam2000:129ff).

Point b)Identitiesareunderstress;particularlymigrantidentities.Thereisatwofoldlogicbehindthisstress.Firstly,inclusioninaflexibilisedeconomicsystemofweakidentitiesandstrongpersonalitieschallengesthosepeopleinsearchofvaluesandorientations(Sennett1998).Migrantsarewellsuitedtoaflexibilisedeconomyinthatthemigrationprocesshasaccustomedthemtocompromisetheiridentity.IncontrasttotheFordisteconomy,thenewflexibilisedeconomyno longercompensates the lackof social integrationof migrants through workplace related community building activities.

�

Migrantsthuslookuponcommunitiesasidentitystabilizingplaces(FibbiandCattacin2002).

Secondly, the pluralisation process that has been accelerating sincethe 1960s has weakened the acculturation pressure on the migrants. Asmembersofdifferentiatedsocietiesmigrantscan,likeothers,chooseoptionsofbelonging.Inthismarketofidentities,peopledonotonlyhaveaweakerindividual identity, but in order to exist and survive are also obliged tostrengthenthisresidualidentity(Amselle2000).Ifnormalitymeanslivinginasocialspacethatdoesnotrequireanyaffiliation,orifthe“liminality”ofexistenceisthenorm(Bauman2000),stabilisingidentitiesthusrepresenta strategy of survival (Szakolczai 1994). Aggregated neighbourhoodsbecomeplacesinwhichfragileidentities,threatenedbydailyexperiencesofdiscriminationorstigmatisation,canbestabilisedthroughmeetingpeoplelikethemselves.

Point c)AsEtzioniargued(forinstanceinEtzioni1993),urbanspacescanbethestartingpointforcommunitarianinitiativesofself-help.Thequestioniswhetherneighbourhoodswithalargemigrantcommunityhavedevelopedsuchacapacity.Ourhypothesisisthatthemorefreedomtoacttheseareashave,themoretheyareabletosolvetheirownproblems.ThelargecitiesinNorthAmericaareanexampleofthislibertyandacceptancetoact,whilein European cities, segregated spaces are generally politically contestedaslegitimatedplacesincities(Donzelotetal.2001).Thequestioniswhythesedifferences continue to exist between theNewand theOldWorld.ProbablybecausetheprogrammaticchoiceofEuropetofightpovertywithalargewelfarestateaffectsthetolerationofhighlydisadvantagedsituations(Cattacin2006).Onlysincethe1980sandchangesineconomicandsocietalmodelslimitingwelfarestatedevelopment(CattacinandLucas1999)hasEuropestartedtorealisethatpovertyisaninevitablepartofsocietalreality.In contrast, immigration countries like the USA have adopted a logic ofdevelopmentofsocialsolidaritythatisnotstatebutcommunitycentredanddoesnotchargethesocietyforindividualfailures.7

Todaywecandiscernaweakeningofthetwomodels.TheEuropeanmodelisweakenedasthewelfarestate’sfinancialcrisisandrelateddifficultiesinpursuingredistributionpoliciesbecomeapparent. If there isanycommongroundatallinEuropeansocialpoliciesatthecitylevel,thenitisthelackofanalternativemodeltoanti-segregationpolicy.Theproblemparticularlyresidesinthefactthat,withoutresourcesandwithoutideas,citiesareworkingonashort-termlogicoftrouble-shootingthathasnorealperspective.Riotsandanomyarethereforelogicalconsequences(Donzelot2006).

�

The communitarian model of immigrant societies has also reachedits limit with the end of generalised economic growth. In the currenteconomicdynamic,povertyandspatialsegregationarerelatedinthesensethat the resources mobilised in the communities are limited. Aggregatedneighbourhoods of people with a low socio-economic status risk beingsubjected to a process of “hyper-ghettoization”, as Loïc Wacquant callsit (Wacquant 2006a; Wacquant 2006b), that highlights this loss of self-regeneratingresources.EventhoughIthinkthatWacquantisdramatisingtheurbandynamicsoftheUnitedStates(andEurope),andunderestimatingthe communities’ reactivity,8 he nevertheless points to clear relationshipsbetween communitarian and material resources, and between social andeconomiccapital(seealsoBagnasco1999).Thetwodimensionsareneededataminimallevelifpeopleandgroupsaretosurvive.Evenifitiseasiertobothmeetpeopleandfindajobinthecities,weareneverthelessconfrontedwitha sprawlingcity space thatcreatesneighbourhoodswithout identityandindangerofanomy.

Point d)Ifwearguethat,inmodernsocieties,citiesneedplacesinwhichpeoplewithalowsocio-economicstatuscanliveandinwhichcommunitarisationprocessesarepossiblebecausetheseplacesarestartingpointsinmigration,identitystabilisingandresourceproducingprocesses,wearenotstatingthatweneed“ghettos”assuch,butthatsuchplaceshaveaclearfunctioninoursocietywhich is probablyunderestimated.Combating suchplacesmeansfollowing a romantic view of a harmonious, mixed – and multicultural– society. It means that cities are seen without a dynamic of continuousreorganizationandmigration(Donzelot2006:77).

Buttheblendingofsociety,forexamplethroughanti-segregationpoliciesin cities, risks destroying the self-regenerating resources of our societyproducedinmorehomogeneousspaces.Acceptingtoliveinapluriculturalsociety–ratherthanamulticulturalone–inwhichdifferencesarethenorm,impliesfindingawayofworkingwiththesedifferencesforwhattheyreallyare,namely,resources.But ifwewanttousetheseresources,wehavetorecognise themrather thandenigrate them(CattacinandBaglioni2005);inotherwordswehavetogivethemaplacewheretheycanreactanddealautonomouslywiththreatsandtroubles(DonzelotandEstèbe1994).

The process of recognition begins with suffering and the developmentofself-consciousness,9whichinturnleadstoapublicpositioningofthosegroupsthatareneithervisiblenoraccepted.This“struggle”forrecognition(Honneth1994)allowspeoplewithspecificcharacteristicstoexistindignity–butalsodemandsthattherestofsocietyacceptsthisdignity(asTaylor1992 and Ricoeur 2004 highlighted). This can be done by indifference,

�

acceptingtheexistenceofdifferentlifeworlds.Butifthesedifferencesarerelated toa similarproject, like the reproductionofan innovativeurbansociety,thenwaysofrelatingthesedifferencestothissameprojecthavetobefound.Thisisaquestionofgovernanceofthecity.

Governance of DifferenceBefore analysing the urban space as a place in which the density anddifferences of people are meant to bring out innovation and democraticconflictresolution,weneedtounderstandhowthecityisregulatedtoday.We assume that understanding the complexity of the city requires anunderstanding of its governance as a multifaceted dynamic in which thestateauthoritiesatthelocallevel(thelocalstate)playsomekindofrole,although probably no longer a predominant one (e). In particular, thegoverning authorities ought to be open to innovation and change. Theyshouldratherconsiderdifferencesasresources(f). Thiswillleadthecitytoamoreurbandevelopmentthatissensitivetodifference.Newinstruments,adaptedtotheacceleratedchangeofthecity,areneeded(g).

Point e)Nowadaysresearchershighlightthefactthatlocalauthoritiesareinamuchbetterpositionthannationalauthoritiestodealwiththepluralityofsocietyandtoapplyconcreteandappropriatemeasures(see,forinstance,Bauböck2002).Whilethecityisstillthebestlevelforthegovernanceofdifferencesandsocialchallenges,Iamassumingthattheactorsofgovernancearemanyandvariedandthat,inthisframework,thelocalstateisnotthecentreofgovernanceanymorebutonlyone–albeitimportant–producerofdecisionsamongothers.

Indeed, deindustrialization, migration and accelerated economicchangeshavechallengedcityauthorities.Giventhelogicofthelong-termurbandevelopmentplanningof the1970sandtheperiodofconservativestabilizationofcitiesinthe1980s,forthelasttwentyyearswehavebeenconfronted with the rediscovery of uneven growth and reactive policiesdemanding an acceptance of radical interventions and spaces of freerestructuring(CamposVenuti1990).The“splintering”ofthecity(GrahamandMarvin2001)isthenewrealityinwhichgovernancecanbelikenedtoapatternofnetworked, relatively independentorganisedworlds. In suchanetwork,thecityhasthefunctionofguaranteeingbasicinfrastructures,with the main actors being investors and anarchically formed andcontinuouslychangingcommunities.Urbansubculturesofalternativelife-worlds,i.e.thoseofmigrants,aregenerallyorganisedthroughservicesandself-governinginitiativesthatareneitherplannednorprovidedbythelocalstate. For instance, the analysis of the world of undocumented migrants

�

in the city leads us to a picture of networks of self-help that are oftenacknowledged,oratleasttolerated,bythelocalstate.Whenthelocalstateisintheambivalentpositionofknowingthatundocumentedmigrantsneedaservice,suchashealth,thatcannoteasilybedeliveredofficially,itacceptsthe existenceof alternativehealth services.Without them, the local statewouldhavetoactinacontradictoryway.Byacceptingthem,itfacilitatestheprovisionofabasicrighttohealthcare.10Similarcircumstancesgoverntheworldofdrugabuse (Cattacinetal.1996)orhomelessness.Withoutparallelservices–parallelworldsofurbanexistence–theproblemswouldincreasetotheextentthatcitieswouldbeincrisis.

Thesenetworksproduceservices–orinasense,partialrights–forspecificgroupseitherthroughself-organizationoradvocacyandsolidaritygroups.Access towhatamounts tobasic services isguaranteed ifonebelongs toa specificgroup.Thisproductionofpartial (and informal) rightsoutsidethesphereofthestatetransformsthelogicofcitizenship.Citizenshipthenbecomesavarietyofrights,whicharerealisedinacityandtowhichaccessisgivenbydifferentlawsandsocietalactors.Wecancallthismultifacetedcitizenshipinthecities’“societalcitizenship”,asIsinseemstosuggest:

Ratherthanmerelyfocusingoncitizenshipaslegalrights,thereisnowagreement that citizenship must also be defined as a social processthrough which individuals and social groups engage in claiming,expandingorlosingrights.Beingpoliticallyengagedmeanspractisingsubstantive citizenship, which in turn implies that members of apolityalwaysstruggletoshapeitsfate.Thiscanbeconsideredasthesociological definition of citizenship in that the emphasis is less onlegalrulesandmoreonnorms,practices,meaningsandidentities(Isin2000:3).

Thiscitizenshiprealisedinthecontextofthecityleadsustotheideaofan“urbancitizenship”thatisnotonlybasedonrightsgivenbythestateandsocietalactors,butalsobyamultileveledaffiliationofeachpersontolocal,national,inter-andsupranationalrights.11Evenifthelocalstateactsasthemainreferenceforpeoplelivinginthecity,andinparticularforpeopleinaprecarioussituation,itstillhastodealwithmultipleaffiliations,legaciesandconstraints.

Consequently, the (almost impossible) mission of governing the city isdoomedtofailure if theambition is to lead,ratherthanwork intandemwithallkindsofcivilsociety’sorganisationstomakedecisionsandprovideservicesandaffiliations.

�

Point f) Cities move from a hierarchical model of governance to a“heterarchical”12 model with many centres of decision. This change canleadtoahorizontalintegrationstructureofactorsinthecity,tosynergiesbetweentheproducersofservicesandeventosolidarityinthecity,ifthedifferentactorsare recognisedasproducersand if their resources canbecombined.13Butthiscombinationcantakedifferentforms,asindicatedbystudiesonalternative culturesor socialandhealth services (Blankeetal.1986;Cattacinetal.1999,Battaglinietal.2001a;Battaglinietal.2001b).Fromtolerantattitudes to indifferenceand fromexchange tocontractingrelations,theinvolvedactorshavetorecognisetheother’srelevantroleinthecreationofaworkableurbansociety.Butinrelationtodisadvantagedneighbourhoods, it is clear that only capability building policies lead toreactions in the sense that new (and autonomous) resources are created.As Donzelot developed in his significant work on the “animator state”(DonzelotandEstèbe1994),intheFrenchperipheriesitwastheshiftfromapaternalistictoacapabilitybuildingpolicythatfacilitatedanimprovementinthelivingconditionsoftheseneighbourhoods.Theurbandevelopmentpoliciesofthesesareasprovidedakindofself-governancethatmeantgivingpowertothepowerless.Onemightwonderwhetherthiswastheproductofaplannedstrategyonthepartoftheanimatorstate,orjustanaccidentalsideeffect.

Inanycase,thispolicywasdiscontinuedinthe1990s-asaresultoffinancialcutbacksandnotbecausethepolicyhadfailed.Asaconsequence,andasmanyauthorshavepointedout,livingconditionsonceagaindegenerated.14Inotherwords, the incorporationof the resourcesof thepoorest peoplerequiresthattheyhavesomepossibilityofdevelopingtheirownresources–anopportunity theygenerally take.That isan investmentstrategy,andwelldocumentedbySen’sanalysesonthebuildingof“capabilities”(see,forinstance,Sen1992).

Point g) But what are the concrete instruments that permit a differencesensitiveurbandevelopmentandwhichpayparticularattentiontomigrantsand the building up of capabilities? Heterogeneity is the most commoncharacteristic of urban societies and, as Graham and Marvin (2001:405) argue, increasingly reflects the dynamics of a more general societalpluralisation. Inthepoliticsandurbanplanningarena, the last fewyearshavewitnessedanincreasingawarenessoftheurgentneedtoincludeandgrapple with the differences that shape the social contemporary urbanenvironment.Whenonehasto“manageourco-existenceinsharedspaces”– as Healey (Healey 1997: 3) defines planning – considering differencesmeansin primis acknowledgingthat

�0

population groups, differentiated by criteria of age, gender, class,dis/ability, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture and religion, havedifferentclaimsonthecityforafulllifeand,inparticular,onthebuiltenvironment(Sandercock2000:15).

Sandercock(1998)furtherarguesthatthefollowingthreefactorsledtoasignificantchangeintheagendaofurbanplanning:transnationalmigrations,post-colonialismandtheriseofcivilsociety.Thesephenomenastrengthentheideathatthecitiesoftodayare“citiesofdifference”(FincherandJacobs1998). This means that, unlike the modern planning paradigm, the newoneshouldbebasedontheactiveinvolvementofgroupsrepresentingsuch“differences”.

Following this logic, Holston (1995) suggests that, if the paradigm ofmodern planning was based on the state, the new one should be basedon what he calls “insurgent citizenship”. In other words, the new builtenvironmenthas tobe theproductofaparticipatorypoliticalprocess inwhichthedominantculture(anditsinstitutionalisedpowers)isconfrontedandempoweredwithnewidentities,suchasthoseofimmigrants,homelesspeopleorsexualminorities.Inmyview,threeaspectsarefundamental inordertomanagethechallengeraisedbyanurbancitizenship15:

•The promotion of urban diversity.Thisfirstelementconcernstheexistence,inurbanpolicies,ofstrategiestoattractgroupsofdifferentpeople.Iwillcall this factor“differencesensitivecity-marketing”.Thekindsofgroupsthataresolicitedtosettledowninacertainterritoryillustratetheaimsthatunderpin the environment tobebuilt. Inparticular, if the city recognisesits identity as being based on migration, established migrants will feelrecognisedandaccepted.Participationintheconstructionofthecitywillbetheconsequence.

•The integration of diversity in urban development.Thissecondelementconcernstheconstructedspaceandtheinstrumentsusedtodevelopthecity.These instruments and their integration of difference sensitivity facilitatean understanding of how institutionalised such policy options are. Inparticular,inthesphereofhousingdifferencesensitivityiscrucial.Infact,housingpoliciesestablishwhetherornotcertaingroupsshouldinhabitthecity.Moreover,housingpoliciesarefundamentalasacontrasttothecurrenttrendpointedoutbyHäussermanninwhichhousingiscontrolledbymarketmechanismsthat“bringaboutatoughersegregation”(Häussermann1995)andthusblockthedevelopmentofresourcesintheseneighbourhoods.

��

•The participation of “groups of difference” in the processes dealing with urban planning.Thisthirdelementconsistsofthedifferencesembodiedinthecityparticipatingintheelaborationofurbanplanningandproblemsolving.Indeed,thehypothesisisthatthisisaprinciplethatthenewgovernanceofthecityshouldnotderogatefrom.

When combined, these elements can mean a city governance that isconsciousofthenecessitytointegratedifferencesasakeyelementofurbandevelopment.

Aggregated Neighbourhoods?InthistextIhavetriedtodeveloptheideatheneighbourhoodsshouldbeconstructedhomogeneously,asasortofcommunityinthesenseofaggregatedgroups-notnecessarilyonlyintermsofethnicitybutalsointermsofsocio-economiccharacteristics.Thisreflectsmigration,socio-economicdifferencesandthedynamicofthecity’sdevelopment.Theseneighbourhoodshavethepotentialofself-regulationandstabilisationthatareoftenunderestimated.Thus,Ithinkthatthemixtureofacityistheresultofmobility,butcannotbethestartingpoint,inparticularinmodern,flexibilisedsocieties,inwhichweakidentitiessearchstabilisingcommunities.Ifthehistoryof“ghettos”indicatesthattheyweresegregatedandcloseduntilthelastcentury,wehavetoseethemandpromotethemasopenspaces.Thecityhastobeopenandclosedatthesametime,asDonzelot(2005)argues.

Inotherwords, theorientationof themoderncityhas tobeconsciousofthefunctionalityofaggregatedneighbourhoods.Ithastogivethemthemeans with which to develop self-sustaining initiatives, but at the sametime must avoid making the error of promoting “ghettos”. Finding theequilibriumbetweenaggregationinneighbourhoodsandopennessforsocialandterritorialmobilityinthecityisimportant;notthroughstatecentredplanning,butthroughadifferencesensitivegovernancethatiscommittedtoconstructingthecityinpartnershipwithmultipleactors.

��

NOTES

1 This text was conceived through discussions with Milena Chimienti.Hercommentswereextremelyhelpful.ErikVerkooyenalsocontributedcommentsatthefinalstage.

2 For more on this debate between Simmel and Park, see in particularHäussermann1995.

3 WhatisdifferentfromSimmel’sthesishereisthatsocietyandstatenolonger think that equality is possible and seem tohave accepted thatinequalitiescannotbesolved,onlylimited.

4 ThisdistinctionbetweenpsychologicalandmaterialontologicalsurvivalisintroducedbyMilenaChimienti(Chimienti2006)asanadditiontoGiddens(Giddens1991).

5 Historically,theword“ghetto”usuallyreferstoasegregatedandclosedspacebasedonculturaldifferences(religionorrace,asthefirstJewishghettoscreatedinEuropeinthe16thcentury–bytheway,thewordstemsfromthisrealityinVeniceatthattime–ortheAfro-Americanghettos;see Nightingale 2003 on this issue). Here I go beyond this historicalmeaningandregardghettosashomogeneousopenspaceswithahighconcentrationofpeopleofsimilar,ingenerallowsocio-economicstatus,orwhatIhavecalledaggregatedneighbourhoods.

6 Typically, in smaller European cities, the homogenisation ofneighbourhoodsarerare,evenwithhighnumbersofmigrants;butthisdoesnotmeanthattheyarenotorganisedincommunities.Infact,insteadof“ghettos”wefindmeetingplaces,shoppingmallsorbuildings,whichpermitdailybasedcontacts(seethestudiesinHoffmann-NowotnyandHondrich1982).

7 See the normative debate between Barry and Kymlicka and Banting(Barry1990;Barry2001;KymlickaandBanting2006)aboutthesetwowaysofcreationofsocialsolidarity,basedoncommunityrecognitionorredistribution(similarinFraserandHonneth2003).

8 SeehiscritiqueonAmericanauthorswritingaboutthecommunitarianresourcesofblackpeopleinbadneighbourhoods(Wacquant2002).

��

9 Asithasbeenreconstructed,forinstancebyChimienti2005andRocaiEscoda2004.

10SeethetextsinBjörngrenCuadraandCattacin2006.

11Concerning these two faces of urban citizenship see Bauböck 2003and Varsanyi 2006. Hence, Bauböck claims that urban citizenship isthefirststep inreadingthecityasaproducerofanewcosmopolitancitizenship.

12IborrowthiswordcreationfromHelmutWillke(Willke1997).

13 SeeEversonthelogicof“synergeticwelfaremixes”(Evers1993).

14ForinstanceDonzelot2006orWievorka2005.

15ThankstoSimoneBaglioniwithwhomIdevelopedthesethoughts.

��

REFERENCES

Achermann,Christin andMilenaChimienti (2005)Migration, Prekarität und Gesundheit. Ressourcen und Risiken von vorläufig Aufgenommenen und Sans-Papiers in Genf und Zürich. Neuchâtel: Swiss Forum forMigrationStudies.

Amselle,Jean-Loup(2000)Branchements. Anthropologie de l’universalité des cultures.Paris:Flammarion.

Bagnasco,Arnaldo(1999)Tracce di comunità.Bologna:ilMulino.

Barry,Brian(1990)“TheWelfareStateversustheReliefofPoverty”,Ethics100:503-529.

Barry,Brian(2001)Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multi-culturalism.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Battaglini, Monica, Sandro Cattacin and Véronique Tattini (2001a)“Reconnaissance et coopération: quelle institutionnalisation del’associationnisme? Deuxième partie”, Associations transnationales/Transnational Associations01(3):130-156.

Battaglini, Monica, Sandro Cattacin and Véronique Tattini (2001b)“Reconnaissance et coopération: quelle institutionnalisation del’associationnisme? Première partie”, Associations transnationales/Transnational Associations01(2):60-73.

Bauböck,Rainer(2002)Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international migration.Cheltenham[etc.]:E.Elgar.

Bauböck, Rainer (2003) “Reinventing Urban Citizenship”, Citizenship Studies7(2):139-160.

Bauman,Zygmunt(2000)Liquid Modernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Björngren Cuadra, Carin and Sandro Cattacin (eds) (2006) Migration and Health. Difference sensitivity from an organisational perspective.Malmö:MalmöUniversity,IMER,forthcoming.

��

Blanke, Bernhard, Adalbert Evers and Hellmut Wollmann (eds) (1986)Die Zweite Stadt, Neue Formen lokaler Arbeits- und Sozialpolitik.Opladen:WestdeutscherVerlag.

Campos Venuti, Giuseppe (1990) La terza generazione dell’urbanistica.Milano:Angeli.

Castel, Robert (1995) Les métamorphoses de la question sociale. Une chronologie du salariat.Paris:Fayard.

Cattacin, Sandro (2006) “Migration and Differentiated Citizenship.On the (post)Americanization of Europe”, Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations1/06.Malmö:MalmöUniversity,IMER.

Cattacin, Sandro, Barbara Lucas and Sandra Vetter (1996) Modèles de politique en matière de drogue. Une recherche comparative sur six réalités européennes.Paris:L’Harmattan.

Cattacin,SandroandBarbaraLucas(1999)“Autorégulation,interventionétatique,miseenréseau.Lestransformationsdel’EtatsocialenEurope:lescasduVIH/sida,del’abusd’alcooletdesdroguesillégales”,Revue française de science politique49(3):379-398.

Cattacin, Sandro, Benito Perez, Isabelle Renschler and Eléonore Zottos(1999)“‘Etatincitateur’ou‘deuxièmeville’:l’animationsocioculturelleàGenève”,Revue Suisse de Science Politique5(2):67-92.

Cattacin, Sandro and Simone Baglioni (2005) “Ce qui se passe dans lesbanlieues de France a très peu à voir avec l’immigration”,Le Temps (15.11.2005).

Chimienti,Milena(2005)“Inclusion-exclusion:leVIH/sidafaceàd’autresmaladies chroniques”, in Cattacin, Sandro et al. (eds), Solidarité et droits sociaux. Réflexions partant de la question du VIH/sida,p. 51-134.Muri:SGGP-SSPS.SchriftenreihederSGGPNo.84.

Chimienti, Milena (2007) Prostitution, migration et santé. Université deGenève:Départementdesociologie.Unpublishedmanuscript.

��

Dear, Michael J. and Steven Flusty (2001) “The Resistible Rise of theL.A. School”, in Dear, Michael J. and J. Dallas Dishman (eds),From Chicago to L.A.: Making sense of urban theory, p. 3-16.ThousandOaks,Calif.:SagePublications.

Donzelot,Jacques(2005)“Élogedelamobilité.Unespaceurbaindoitêtreouvertetfermé”,EspritDécembre(05):44-55.

Donzelot,Jacques(2006)Quand la ville se défait.Paris:Seuil.

Donzelot,JacquesandPhilippeEstèbe(1994)L’Etat animateur. Essai sur la politique de la ville.Paris:Esprit.

Donzelot,Jacques,CahterineMévelandAnneWyvekens(2001)Faire société. La politique de la ville aux Etats-Unis et en France.Paris:Seuil.

Etzioni,Amitai(1993)The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda.NewYork:CrownPublishers.

Evers, Adalbert (1993) “The Welfare Mix Approach. Unterstanding thePluralism of Welfare System”, in Evers, Adalbert and Ivan Svetlik(eds),Balancing Pluralism. New Welfare Mixes in Care for the Elderly,p. 3-32.Aldershot:Avebury.

Fibbi,RositaandSandroCattacin(eds)(2002)L’auto e mutuo aiuto nella migrazione: una valutazione d’iniziative di self help tra genitori italiani in Svizzera; mit einer deutschen Kurzfassung der Studie im Anhang.Neuchâtel:SFM/FSM.

Fincher,RuthandJaneM.Jacobs(1998)Cities of difference.NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Florida, Richard (2004) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. NewYork:BasicBooks.

Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003) Redistribution or recognition?: A political-philosophical exchange.London,NewYork:Verso.

Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late Modern Age.Cambridge:PolityPress.

��

Graham, Stephen and Simon Marvin (2001) Splintering Urbanism. Neetworked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition.London:Routledge.

Häussermann,Hartmut(1995)“DieStadtunddieStadtsoziologie.UrbaneLebensweise und die Integration des Fremden”, Berliner Journal für Soziologie5(1):89-98.

Healey,Patsy(1997)Collaborative Planning - Shaping places in fragmented societies.HoundmillsandLondon:Macmillan.

Hirschman,AlbertO.(1970)Exit, voice, and loyalty; responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.

Hoffmann-Nowotny,Hans-JoachimandKarl-OttoHondrich(eds)(1982)Ausländer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in der Schweiz: Segregation und Integration, eine vergleichende Untersuchung.Frankfurt[etc.]:CampusVerl.

Holston,J(1995)“Spacesofinsurgentcitizenship”,Planning Theory and Practice13:35-52.

Honneth, Axel (1994) Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte.FrankfurtM.:Suhrkamp.

Isin, Engin F. (2000) Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City.NewYork:Routledge.

Kymlicka,WillandKeithG.Banting(2006)Multiculturalism and the welfare state: recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Mearns, Andrew (1970 [1883]) The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Inquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor. Old Woking,Surrey:LeicesterUP.

Nightingale,CarlH.(2003)“ATaleofThreeGlobalGhettos.HowArnoldHirschHelpsUsInternationalizeU.S.UrbanHistory”,Journal of Urban History29(3):257-271.

��

Park, Robert E. (1928) “Human migration and the marginal man”,The American Journal of Sociology33(6):881-893.

Paugam, Serge (1991) La disqualification sociale. Essai sur la nouvelle pauvreté.Paris:PUF.

Paugam,Serge(2000)Le salarié de la précarité.Paris:PUF.

Ricoeur, Paul (2004) Parcours de la reconnaissance: trois études.Paris:Stock.

RocaiEscoda,Marta(2004)“Uneépreuvepolitiqueinéquitableetbiaisée?Le cas de la reconnaissance législative des couples homosexuels”,Swiss Journal of Sociology30(2):249-270.

Sandercock,Leonie(1998)Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities.Chichester;NewYork:J.Wiley.

Sandercock,Leonie(2000)“WhenStrangersBecomeNeighbours:ManagingCitiesofDifference”,Planning Theory and Practice1(1):13-30.

Sen,AmartyaKumar(1992)Inequality reexamined.NewYork;Cambridge,Mass.:RussellSageFoundation;HarvardUniversityPress.

Sennett, Richard (1998) The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism.NewYork:Norton.

Simmel, Georg (2001 [1900]) Philosophie des Geldes. Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.

Szakolczai, Arpad (1994) “Thinking beyond the East-West divide:Foucault, Patocka, and the care of the self - Michel Foucault,JanPatocka”,Social Research61(2):297-323.

Taylor,Charles(1992)Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Varsanyi, Monica W. (2006) “Interrogating ‘Urban Citizenship’ vis-à-visUndocumentedMigration”,Citizenship Studies10(2):229-249.

��

Wacquant,Loïc(2002)“ScrutinizingtheStreet:Poverty,Morality,andthePitfallsofUrbanEthnography”,American Journal of Sociology107(6):1468-1532.

Wacquant,Loïc (2006a)Parias urbains. Ghetto - Banlieues - Etat.Paris:Ladécouverte.

Wacquant, Loïc (2006b) “The Return of the Repressed: Riots, ‘Race’,and Dualization in Three Advanced Societies”, Monu: Magazine on Urbanism5(July):18-31.

Whyte,WilliamFoote(1943)Street corner society: the social structure of an Italian slum.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Wievorka,Michel(2005)La différence: Identités culturelles: enjeux, débats et politiques. Paris:L’Aube.

Willke,Helmut(1997)Die Supervision des Staates.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

SandroCattacinisProfessorofmeso-sociology,andspecialisesinsocialandhealthpoliciesattheSociologicalDepartmentoftheUniversityofGeneva.Hehascarriedoutresearchonissuesofpublichealthandmarginalisation,andhisworkingareasinvolveurbanpolicies,minoritiesandorganisationalstudies(www.unige.ch/ses/socio/sandro.cattacin).

In late 2006 Malmö University expects to publish a collection of papersbasedonthreeWillyBrandtworskhopsheldatIMER,entitledMigration and Health: Difference Sensitivity from an Organisational Perspective,editedbySandroCattacinandCarinBjörngrenCuadra.

SandroCattacinwasGuestProfessorinmemoryofWillyBrandtatIMERduringtheautumnsemesterof2005.

�0

Willy Brandt Series of Working Papersin International Migration and Ethnic Relations

1/01 RainerBauböck.2001. PublicCultureinSocietiesof Immigration.

2/01 RainerBauböck.2001. MultinationalFederalism: TerritorialorCulturalAutonomy?

3/01 ThomasFaist.2001. DualCitizenshipas OverlappingMembership.

4/01 JohnRex.2003. TheBasicElementsofaSystematic TheoryofEthnicRelations.

1/02 JockCollins.2003. EthnicEntrepreneurshipin Australia.

2/02 JockCollins.2003. ImmigrationandImmigrant SettlementinAustralia: PoliticalResponses,Discourses andNewChallenges.

3/02 EllieVasta.2003. Australia’sPost-war Immigration–Institutional andSocialScienceResearch.

4/02 EllieVasta.2004. CommunitiesandSocialCapital.

1/03 GreteBrochmann.2004. TheCurrentTrapsofEuropean ImmigrationPolicies.

2/03 GreteBrochmann.2004. WelfareState,Integrationand LegitimacyoftheMajority: TheCaseofNorway.

3/03 ThomasFaist.2004. MultipleCitizenshipina GlobalisingWorld:The PoliticsofDualCitizenshipin ComparativePerspective.

4/03 ThomasFaist.2004. TheMigration-SecurityNexus: InternationalMigrationand Securitybeforeandafter9/11.

1/04 KatherineFennelly.2004. ListeningtotheExperts: ProviderRecommendations ontheHealthNeedsof ImmigrantsandRefugees.

2/04 DonJ.DeVoretz.2004. ImmigrantIssuesandCities: LessonfromMalmöand Toronto.

3/04 DonJ.DeVoretz&Sergiy Pivnenko.2004. TheEconomicsofCanadian Citizenship.

4/04 KatherineFennelly.2005. CorrelatesofPrejudice:Data fromMidwesternCommunities intheUnitedStates.

1/05 MarcoMartiniello.2005. PoliticalParticipation, MobilisationandRepresentation ofImmigrantsandTheirOffspring inEurope.

2/05 NikosPapastergiadis.2005. TheInvasionComplex: DeepHistoricalFearsand WideOpenAnxieties.

3/05 NikosPapastergiadis.2005. MobilityandtheNation: Skins,MachinesandComplex Systems.

1/06 SandroCattacin.2006. Migrationanddifferentiated citizenship:Onthe(post-) AmericanizationofEurope.

Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in international Migration and Ethnic relations2/06

Published2006

EditorMaja Povrzanovic Frykmanmaja.frykman@imer.mah.se

Editor-in-ChiefBjörn Fryklund

Published bySchool of International Migration and Ethnic RelationsMalmö University205 06 MalmöSweden

2/06 Sandro Cattacin. 2006. Why not “ghettos”? The governance of migration in the splintering city.

ISSN 1650-5743 / Online publicationwww.bit.mah.se/MUEP

Sandro CattaCin

WHY not “GHEttoS”? tHE GoVErnanCE oF MiGration

in tHE SPLintErinG CitY

Willy Brandt Series of Working Papersin International Migration and Ethnic Relations

2/06

Ma

LM

ö U

niV

Er

Sit

Y •

iME

r2

00

6

The Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations is published by the School of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER), established in 1997 as a multi- and transdiscipli- nary academic education and research field at Malmö University.

The Working Paper Series is a forum for research in, and debate about, issues of migration, ethnicity and related topics. It is associated with IMER’s guest professorship in memory of Willy Brandt. Thus, the Series makes available original manuscripts by IMER’s visiting Willy Brandt professors.

The guest professorship in memory of Willy Brandt is a gift to Malmö Uni- versity financed by the City of Malmö, and sponsored by MKB Fastighets AB. The Willy Brandt professorship was established to strengthen and deve- lop research in the field of international migration and ethnic relations, and to create close links to international research in this field.

The Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations is available in print and online.

MaLMö UniVErSitY

SE-205 06 MalmöSweden

tel: +46 40-665 70 00

www.mah.se