THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL Displaying Families: exploring the significance of ‘display’ in a city that is increasingly culturally diverse being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Julie C. Walsh, B.A. (Hons) MSc September 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Phil, Ezra and Amos for their love and for being my anchor. I thank Janey for being my oldest friend, Réka for teaching me to have self-belief and my parents and Auntie Sue for their support. I also thank my supervisors and mentors, Dr. Julie Seymour and Dr. Mick Wilkinson, for having faith in me. Finally, I thank the participants in this study for sharing their feelings, stories and experiences. Their openness has made this thesis a rich, colourful representation of migrant and indigenous life in Kingston upon Hull. CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction pp.5-13 The Research Question, Aims and Objectives of the Study pp.7 Overview of the Thesis pp.8 Chapter Two: The Changing Demographic Landscape of Hull pp.14-18 New Migrant Populations in Hull Post 2000 pp.14 The Geographical Spread of Migrant Populations in Hull pp.16 Studies of Migration in Kingston upon Hull pp.17 Fig 1: Map of wards and neighbourhoods in Kingston upon Hull pp.17 Conclusion pp.18 Chapter Three: The Sociological Shift in Approaches to the Family pp.19-44 The Sociological Shift from Family as a Functional Unit to a Family Practices Approach pp.19 Janet Finch and “Family Display” pp.21 Emerging Themes in “Family Display” Literature pp.30 Conclusion pp.42 Chapter Four: The UK’s History of Immigration and Race Relations pp.45-74 The Perceived Problem of Migration in the UK pp.45 The Early C20th and the Advent of Immigration Control pp.46 Post War Britain and Immigration pp.48 The Thatcher and Major Years: 1979 – 1997 pp.53 The Position at the End of the C20th pp.58 1997 – 2010: The New Labour Era pp.58 The 2010 Coalition Government pp.68 Conclusion pp.72 Chapter Five: Linking “Family Display” and Community Cohesion pp.75-84 “Family Display” and the Development of Cohesive Communities pp.75 The Power of the Dominant Norm pp.80 Conclusion pp.84 Chapter Six: Methodology pp.85-112 Methodological Approach pp.85 A Mixed Methods Approach pp.88 The Research Sample pp.95 Working with Interpreters pp.98 Research with Family Children pp.102 The Position of the Researcher and Reflexivity pp.103 Ethical Considerations pp.106 Data Analysis pp.111 Conclusion pp.112 Chapter Seven: Transnational “Family Display” pp.113-152 Why Display Matters to Migrant Families in Hull pp.114 How Migrant Families Living in Hull Display Family Transnationally pp.120 “Degrees of Intensity” in Transnational Display pp.134 Troubled Displays: When there is Conflict Across National Borders pp.141 Intergenerational Transnational Family Displays pp.144 Unsuccessful Displays: When Display is not Enough pp.149 Conclusion pp.150 Chapter Eight: Local Family Display pp.153-201 Why Migrant Families Resident in Hull Display Family Locally pp.154 “Relativising” and “Family Display” pp.155 “Frontiering” and “Family Display” pp.162 How Migrant Families Resident in Hull Display Family Locally pp.172 “Tools” of Local Migrant “Family Display” pp.181 Barriers to Local Migrant “Family Display” pp.196 Conclusion pp.198 Chapter Nine: The Role of the Audience in “Family Display” pp.202-253 Part 1: The Audience so Far pp.204 Part 2: The Influence of the Indigenous Audience pp.207 Part 3: Community Connectivity and Cohesion pp.236 Conclusion pp.250 Chapter Ten: The Significance of “Family Display” in Hull pp.254-287 Part 1: Evaluating “Family Display” as a Concept pp.254 Part 2: The Role of Audience in “Family Display” pp.259 Part 3: The Role of “Family Display” in Community Cohesion pp.268 Part 4: Policy Recommendations pp.276 Conclusion pp.285 Chapter Eleven: Conclusion pp. 288-292 The Significance for Family Sociology pp.288 The Significance for Migration Studies pp.289 The Significance for Social Policy pp.290 Areas for Further Research pp.290 Closing Comments pp.291 Bibliography pp.293-318 Appendix One: Migrant Family Participants pp.319-320 Appendix Two: Audience Participants pp.321-322 Chapter One: Introduction INTRODUCTION Today, I was in the park with my two year old son, stood next to a Kurdish man with two children. He was pushing one child in a swing and the other was sat in a pushchair besides them, eating an ice-cream. We chat a little and, afterwards, I wonder if this is how he would be with his children in Kurdistan, if he intentionally does what he sees some British dads doing and what indigenous Hull people think of him and his family.1 (field diary, 10th October, 2011) This observation was the starting point for the questions mooted in this thesis. In 2001/2002, a group of approximately four thousand young, Kurdish, male asylum seekers were dispersed to Kingston upon Hull, a city in the north of England (Lewis et al., 2008). As a community development worker in the city, I worked with these relatively unsupported men as they ‘resettled’ in a predominantly white British city (ONS, 2003). I also worked with the mostly white, British indigenous population, as they struggled with the influx of arrivees that, at the time, gathered in groups, in public spaces and were from an unfamiliar culture. In the intervening years, Hull’s population has continued to become more culturally diverse, with migrants from a wide range of countries arriving in the city (Migration Yorkshire, 2014a) with connectivity and cohesion between communities consistently requiring promotion and support (Craig et al., 2005) (chapter two). Ten years on, my observations of the now settled, Kurdish refugees, as well as migrant families from other cultural backgrounds, reflect those noted in my field diary. Parallel to these local demographic shifts, immigration increased in “political salience” (Zetter et al., 2006: 2) and a number of significant developments and policy shifts occurred relating to immigration and minority ethnic communities in the UK (chapter four). There was, for example, a tightening of asylum legislation (Finney & Simpson, 2009) and, simultaneously, the free movement of citizens from EU member states was permitted, resulting in the growth of EU populations in the UK and Hull (Migration 1 Field diary entries are identifiable by the use of “bradley hand font” and participant accounts by the use of “courier new font”. 5 Chapter One: Introduction Yorkshire, 2014b). As a consequence of these combined political and demographic changes, I began to consider the impact policy developments might have on public opinion but, also, if a cross-cultural understanding of “family” could have positive implications for community connectivity. For these reasons, this research is timely and Kingston upon Hull provides an opportunity to explore the significance of “family” in cross-cultural connectivity and cohesion. More specifically, this study uniquely sets out to empirically test and expand Janet Finch’s (2007) concept of “displaying families” within the context of this increasingly culturally diverse city. Academic Rationale In 2007, Finch introduced the concept of “display” as a new way of understanding “family”. She does so by building on Morgan’s earlier argument that the modern family is no longer the “fixed” concept of a nuclear family, consisting of biological parents and their children living in one household, but it is fluid, diverse and multifaceted. The concept of family has, instead, become a set of “practices” that are “done” which take on meaning, associated with family, at a given point in time (Morgan, 1996; Morgan, 2011a, 2011b). Finch, however, expands and argues that families need to be “displayed” as well as “done”, as “the meaning of one’s actions have to be both conveyed to and understood by relevant others if those actions are to be effective as constituting ‘family practices’” (2007:66). She further argues that, if “family practices” aim to legitimise contemporary family, “display” is necessary if family participants are to convey “these are my family relationships and they work” (2007: 73). Subsequent applications of theory have focused on the significance of “display” within individual families, but also with a wider “public” audience (chapter three). Examples include Almack’s study of lesbian parent couples (Almack, 2008a), James and Curtis’ (2010) consideration of eating practices in relation to both “display” and personal life, Philip’s (2013, 2014) study of fathering post-divorce and Carter et al’s. (2015) study of couples living apart. This study has a broader focus and adds to the academic debate by considering if, how, when and why migrant families “display” when living in a growing 6 Chapter One: Introduction multi-cultural community, where they potentially seek legitimacy from host, home area and transnational audiences. This exploration of “family display”, thereby, gives a pertinent, new perspective on migrant integration. Further, this study uniquely responds to scholarly calls to consider the role of “audience” in “family display” (chapter nine); Dermott and Seymour, for example, argue that the audience response to “display” is significant, stating that audiences are not passive and are, in fact, “participants in the creation of ‘displaying families’”(2011: 15). In addition to this, Haynes and Dermott acknowledge the impact of audience on “family display”, claiming that “audiences can inadvertently require familial displays that would not otherwise take place” (2011: 159). Furthermore, although Finch (2011) argues that “family display” is primarily concerned with those within the family, others posit that the role of the external audience is significant (Roth, 2011; Gabb, 2011; Carter et al., 2015). This innovative study makes the role of the “audience” the subject of empirical investigation and, thereby, engages with these questions.