Entitlement to Welfare and Immigration Status - Essay Example

Running Head: ENTITLEMENT TO WELFARE AND IMMIGRATION STATUS Entitlement To Welfare And Immigration Status [Name Of Student] [Name Of Institution] ENTITLEMENT TO WELFARE AND ITS LINK TO IMMIGRATION STATUS INTRODUCTION The term "political correctness" has entered the vocabulary of everyday life for more Britain. Many people assume that they know the meaning of the term. What this paper attempts to demonstrate is that the term serves to mask, often to trivialize, ongoing struggles that put into question whether or not UK is in fact a democratic society open to all groups. There are two terrains of struggle, one more visible than the other, which mutually interact and define one another: the political realm where material injustice and structural immigrant are identified in order to end them and the ideological realm where the very same struggles are recast, and often oversimplified and trivialized. The term ""political correctness," it is argued, plays an ideological role by recasting these struggles in dichotomized words in a "we" versus "them" mentality. This way of thinking then serves to reproduce categories that are socially constructed (like race, ethnicity and gender) and to recast them as fixed and immutable. By so doing, however, the material struggles to end inequalities like those caused by sexist and racist oppression are circumvented and undermined. The paper contains a brief historical overview locating the origins of dichotomized thinking and categorization in Western civilization (also a "contested" term) and proposes ways of moving beyond such ways of being in the world. Furthermore, I aim to discuss the impact of all this on entitlement to welfare is linked to immigration status and how it affects social work. DISCUSSION Migration into Britain started somewhat earlier, with a larger influx in the 1960s. Forbes & Mead (1992) estimate that by 1989 the visible ethnic-migrated population numbered over 2.5 million (about 4.7% of the total population). In contrast with Holland, 70% were British citizens and 40% had been born in Britain (ibid); about 8% of under-16-year-olds were from ethnic minorities. Again, the concentration of these groups is very much higher in major cities, particularly in the South-East and West Midlands. Forbes and Mead conclude that migrated groups are systematically disadvantaged in the labour market, although the nature and degree of disadvantage varies according to country of origin. They also point out that 'the position of visible minorities in the British labour market has improved in the last decade, in contrast to all other member states' (p. 20). This has largely come about through the political pressure brought to bear by these groups, particularly in the metropolitan areas, and especially in relation to those services which have been under local democratic control, including education and careers guidance. The expression "community relations" emerged in the early 1960s in Britain in the framework of addressing concerns of racial dissonance, with an endeavor to put together migrated groups speedily into the wider society. Racism, sexism, and a variety of other "isms" have been targeted as social evils that must be eradicated. Groups with little power in Western industrial societies struggle to make their voices heard and to have past wrongs redressed. But as one group--for example, well-educated white middle-class women--achieves some measure of equality, other dis-empowered groups are quick to accuse it of exclusionary action and discrimination. Thus the group "women of colour" identifies itself largely in terms of the hypocrisy of a women's movement that became elitist and hierarchical, claiming to speak for all women when in fact its leadership was confined to those women who were already privileged in many ways, especially in terms of material resources and the colour of their skin (skin privilege). (hooks 2002) However, the group "women of colour" is also meaningless as a category except in terms of the group identified as excluding it: that is, "white" women. A dualism is established which then becomes almost impossible to overcome since the categories are defined here in terms of "colour" and are then perceived as immutable. The issues identified and the struggles that are being waged over them cut to the heart of immigrant (class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical and mental "ability," etc.) in a society that is supposed to be democratic but is itself embedded in an economy that is capitalist. While Karl Marx identified the contradictions that surround the democratic ideals of freedom, equality, and justice in a capitalist economy that is by definition class-based, he was blind to the other equally important forms of immigrant that cut across and into class relations. These other inequalities are the basis for the current concerns over "political correctness." It is perhaps a progressive sign of our times that many people, including people with considerable political and economic clout, attend to these issues and recognize the injustices done to whole groups of people, like the United Kingdom. However, at the same time, liberal angst does nothing to redress those wrongs and indeed has led to extremely virulent forms of backlash as those who either hold power or aspire to it through traditional perceptions of themselves as an elite are being asked to step aside and make room. In turn, it is intimately connected to immigration policies that distinguish between refugees and other classes of immigrants and tie them to their countries of origin through a complex system of classification and control through points of entry. Refugees are in turn a creation, in large measure, of conditions of warfare and/or famine, consequences not of individual activities in isolated regions but of ethnic divisions tied to this requirement to create or recreate geographic borders designating countries as self-contained entities. An obvious example here is the dismemberment of the former Soviet Union, but these conditions exist globally, as is also witnessed in the creation of the nation-state of Israel and the resulting competition for land (homeland) and resources with Palestinians. There has been much debate in the UK on the philosophies underpinning the work of those involved in developing equality of opportunity (e.g. Swann, 1985; Troyna, 1978; Gewirtz, 1991; Forbes & Mead, 1992). A distinction has been made (ILEA, 1983) between three key perspectives: The assimilation perspective, in which it is expected that ethnic minorities should be enabled to fit in to British society. Organisations which set out to treat all individuals as the same, or are 'colour-blind' in their philosophy, could be said to impose a form of cultural 1obotomy on their clients, in denying the additional skills, knowledge and experience that they have as members of a migrated culture. Where help is provided, it is informed by a notion of 'deficit', as defined by the providers. The cultural diversity or multi-cultural perspective, which seeks to recognise and validate the cultural beliefs, practices etc. of ethnic minorities, e.g. food, music, rituals. While beginning to affirm cultural differences as valuable assets in the community, this perspective has been seen as tokenistic, in paying insufficient attention to inequalities in employment, housing, education and training, and to the direct experience of racial discrimination. The equality perspective, which recognises institutional racism as evidence of unequal power and seeks to redress this through, for example, wider consultation and power-sharing, educational and training programmes that tackle issues of inequality and challenge a mono-cultural supremacy, and the development of policies and procedures to address discriminatory practices directly, including systems to monitor effectiveness. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY AND ATTITUDES TOWARD IMMIGRANTS At various moments in the development of social science discourse, certain concepts emerge which assume hegemonic status. Some, as in the case of 'social exclusion', come to occupy a similar position in parallel streams of discourse. It is a concept adopted with apparently equal fervour by a broad swathe of academics in various social science disciplines, and by media commentators and politicians. Much of the debate about social policy in the EU has been couched in these terms, and the end of 1997 witnessed the unveiling by the British government of a 'social exclusion' unit, involving representatives from local government and the voluntary sector. The concept has been heralded as a paradigm, leading to a greater understanding of the plight of the disadvantaged; including women, minorities, the disabled, and the so-called 'urban underclass'. The problem, as with other such concepts, is that it frequently suffers from a lack of theoretical precision on the part of those who use it, with the inevitable result that important structural inequalities, and their determinants, may be obscured. A quite different aspect of this state of 'self-exclusion' relates to the position of migrated communities. Where 'mainstream values' are regarded either as failing to reflect the latter's social and cultural needs or as endemically tainted by racism, spatial segregation is a likely result. This is particularly the case where 'racial' harassment is seen as an inevitable consequence of moving out of areas where one's community has settled historically. This linking of harassment to exclusion leads to the most common, and arguably also most fruitful interpretation of the latter concept: exclusion located within a system of social processes. What is needed, and is often lacking, is a clear specification of the identity of those subjected to exclusion, what it is that people are being excluded from, and what processes have led to this 'exclusion' (CRER, 1996). The latter may involve a myriad of individual actors/actions and structural forces. Thus far we have been focusing essentially on substantive exclusion as universalistic, i.e. exclusion from 'mainstream' society or, alternatively, the denial of basic citizenship rights. More usually, exclusion is seen in more particularistic terms, e.g. the denial of work, of housing, of education, of political rights, and so on. Those who are thus 'excluded' may be identified by unitary group characteristics--age, gender, 'race', ethnicity, health status--or by a composite of these. A common error is to see exclusion as by nature dichotomous, i.e present or absent. In labour market debates, exclusion is often equated with unemployment. In the sphere of education, exclusion is represented as physical removal from an institution. It will be argued that exclusion discourse needs to take a more nuanced form. Thus far, the generic term 'minorities' has been used to indicate groups who may be subject to, or experience, 'exclusion'. The concepts 'race' and ethnicity have also been deployed in a parallel context. Given that we wish to identify and explain differentials in housing position, there is clearly a pressing need to clarify these issues at this stage. In Britain, debates over the past three decades have tended to focus on the experiences of post-war migrants from Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia. Many have conceptualised these matters as questions of 'race relations': indeed there is a vast literature in this genre. This paper takes the view, along with the majority of recent accounts, that 'race' has no firm scientific basis and is ultimately best interpreted as merely a social construct, albeit one with important, and powerful ideological and material effects (Mason, 1995; Miles, 1989, 1993). As to 'ethnicity', even seeing this in a narrowly static (non-situational) fashion involves a myriad of issues including cultural roots, religion, and arguably such factors as 'memories of a shared past' (Bulmer, 1986, p. 54; Ratcliffe, 1996a). Insofar as 'majority society' behaves as if these are matters which constitute meaningful social divisions, analyses need to acknowledge these social constructs and find an appropriate scheme of 'ethnic' categories reflecting perceived difference. This inevitably invokes the possibility of essentialising ethnicity, but a clear pragmatic approach is nevertheless called for. Given that most housing data in Britain uses the 1991 Population Census categories for 'ethnic group' (or a close variant), the following account will adopt this system. What then is the evidence of ethnic inequalities at the national level? As already pointed out, the evidence on homelessness is at best patchy, but some research on homelessness acceptances (such as that by Friedman & Pawson, 1989) and on the single homeless (Cheeseman, 1991) suggests that minorities, and particularly those from the 'black' groups, face disproportionately serious problems. Harassment, which can have the effect of delimiting areas of settlement, appears to be on the increase both in frequency and intensity, not just in Britain but right across Europe (Skellington, 1996). This process underpins existing spatial segregation, and can be seen to lead to the perpetuation, or even widening, of housing differentials (Ratcliffe, 1996a, 1997). Although it is certainly right to argue that minorities on balance fare disproportionately badly when compared with the majority 'white' population, the detailed picture is extremely complicated. Not only is it the case that some minority groups, notably those of Indian origin, fare considerably better than others, but cross-cutting class and gender inequalities are central to a convincing account of overall differentials (Ratcliffe, 1997). The English House Condition Surveys of 1986 and 1991 showed very clearly not only that levels of unfitness and disrepair were much higher in the 'nonwhite' groups but also that the situation did not appear to be improving over time. Problems were particularly serious in property built prior to 1919, and in inner urban terraces in the owner occupied and private rented sectors. Pakistani households and (outside London) the Bangladeshis were, and are, particularly heavily concentrated in this sector of the housing market, and above average household sizes lead to overcrowding, thereby exacerbating problems associated with poor quality dwellings. Lack of access to central heating in a majority of cases further compounds these problems. The Indian population has tended to fare much better on average, being considerably more likely to own semi-detached or detached houses, and being less concentrated in the poorer urban neighbourhoods (Ratcliffe, ibid.). A major part of the explanation for this lies in the very different class composition of this group. In fact, taking occupational status as a proxy for class, it can be seen that (for males at least) the class distribution is consistently quite similar to that of the whites, and by the same token massively at variance with those of the two predominantly Muslim groups. Levels of unemployment amongst those of Indian origin, although higher than for whites, are once again much closer to the latter than to the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. 'Exclusion' from housing of an acceptable quality simply on economic grounds is therefore rather less likely. The very different housing position of the African-Caribbean population is in large part due to a distinctive pattern of household structures. A higher proportion of lone-parent households than amongst other groups is associated with a much greater propensity to rent in the social housing sector. Controlling for household structure and social class 'explains' much of the differential between this group and the other minorities (Peach & Byron, 1993; Ratcliffe, 1996a). What it does not explain, however, is why those who are in local authority housing fare so badly in terms of quality, dwelling type and location. Here evidence of differential treatment has been well documented (Henderson & Karn, 1987; Ratcliffe, 1981; Simpson, 1981; Smith, 1989, 1991). In London, it is the Bangladeshis who are most visibly concentrated in the poorest local authority housing. Furthermore, this in part resulted directly from a policy which responded to the rise in 'racially' motivated attacks by placing families in hard-to-let blocks of flats; thereby effectively punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator (Phillips, 1986). Only after a concerted political campaign did the council in Tower Hamlets, along with others, accept the insertion of a clause in rental agreements to the effect that tenants could be evicted from their property and deemed to be intentionally homeless if found guilty of 'racial' harassment. At the risk of pre-empting later debates, we can argue that this evidence of (enduring) inequalities in housing position suggests a number of things. First, despite 22 years since the entry into the Statute Book of the current Race Relations Act, discrimination on the basis of 'race'/ethnicity remains widespread. Indeed, recent investigations by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) confirm this point (Karn, 1997). Second, there are no global 'exclusionary' processes based on ethnic origin. Third, where there is evidence of 'exclusion' (in whatever sense), this has to be interpreted in the broader context which incorporates further social divisions such as class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and so on. On the issue of tenure, the patterns of `expectations' were massively at variance with current practice; with a major shift amongst the South Asian movers, or would-be movers, towards the social housing sector. The crude ethnicist, determinist and ahistorical assumptions underlying `explanations' of South Asian tenure patterns were always questionable here there was direct evidence of potential changes which, if realised, would result in a marked convergence in tenure patterns both between the various constituent groups and between South Asians, taken as a whole, and the white majority. Only half of the former expected to be owners following their projected move, the remaining households being split fairly evenly between those expecting to rent from the local authority and those opting for the housing association sector. All of these statements are likely to contain a mixture of aspiration, expectation and perhaps resignation. CONCLUSION At the institutional level (in the private sector) are such policies/practices as `racial steering' and the refusal to provide loans either via direct discrimination or (explicit/implicit) `red-lining'. `Steering' has also been a consistent feature of public sector allocations policy (Henderson & Karn, 1987) and `residence qualifications' are still used by some authorities (Mullins & Niner, 1996). Other practices such as the assessment of `housekeeping standards' have thankfully been assigned to the history books. Subtler forms of discrimination may however be said to have replaced them, in that local authorities and housing associations may simply fail to recognise, and/or respond to, the specific needs of particular minority groups. Those who argue that the choices and preferences of individual actors explain existing residential patterns and housing type, tenure and quality configurations provide a radical alternative to the constraints model. Advocates of the `ethnicity school' (c.f. the excellent critique by Jenkins, 1986), including many adherents of rational choice theory, would feature prominently here. Few would give `ethnic factors' the primacy accorded by Dahya (1974), but Ballard & Ballard (1977) suggested that the choices made by migrants could be seen as an independent feature of the allocation process, albeit within a context where discrimination is common. The key question, however, is whether social actors can ever exercise such `choices/preferences' in a vacuum; i.e. whether they can be made independently of exogenous `exclusionary' processes. In other words, even in the absence of overt `exclusion', is it not the case that people will frequently exercise `self-exclusion' and therefore make heavily conditioned `choices'? Harassment and `territoriality', to which the label `exclusion' has also been attached, are undoubtedly significant factors. They may indeed reinforce the positive dimension of `choice' associated with family and locality. REFERENCES Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London, 2001. Back, L. (1996) New Ethnicities and Urban Culture: Racisms and Multiculture in Young Lives (London, UCL Press). Ballard, R. & Ballard, C. (1977) The Sikhs: the development of South Asian settlements in Britain, in: J.L. Watson (Ed.) Between Two Cultures: Migrants and Minorities in Britain (Oxford, Blackwell), pp. 21-56. Baron, R. M., & Kenny. D. A. (2003). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Billig, M. (2003). Social psychology and intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. Blauner, R. (1972) Racial Oppression in America (New York, Harper & Row). Bradford Heritage Recording Unit (1994) Here To Stay: Bradford's South Asian Communities (Bradford, BHRU). Branscombe, N. R. (2004). Thinking about one's gender group's privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167-184. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2000). The context and content of social identity threats. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford: Blackwell. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (2000). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. Brown, R. (2003). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Bulmer, M. (1986) Race and ethnicity, in: R.G. Burgess (Ed.) Key Variables in Social Investigation (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Cheeseman, D. (1991) Monitoring the rootlessness package in London, February September 1991, Homelessness Statistics Seminar Papers. Housing Corporation (Esher, IMAC Research). City of Bradford Metropolitan Council (1993) Areas of Stress within Bradford District (Bradford, Research Section of the Chief Executive's Department). CRER (1995) Annual Report 1994-1995 (University of Warwick, Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations). CRER (1996) Report of ESRC Workshop on Social Exclusion (University of Warwick, Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations). Dahya, B. (1974) The nature of Pakistani ethnicity in industrial cities in Britain, in: A. Cohen (Ed.) Urban Ethnicity (London, Tavistock), pp. 77-113. Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Guilty by association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872-886. Ellemers, N. (2002). The influence on socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 27-58). New York: Wiley. Friedman, D. & Pawson, H. (1989) One in Every Hundred: A Study of Households Accepted as Homeless in London (London, London Housing Unit/London Research Centre). Gilroy, R. (1996) Building routes to power: lessons from Cruddas Park, Local Economy, November, pp. 248-258. Harrison, M. & Law, I. (1997) Needs and empowerment in minority ethnic housing: some issues of definition and local strategy, Policy and Politics, 25(3), pp. 285-298. Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage. Henderson, J. & Karn, V. (1987) Race, Class and State Housing: Inequality and the Allocation of Public Housing in Britain (Aldershot, Gower). Jenkins, R. (1986) Social anthropological models of inter-ethnic relations, in: J. Rex & D. Mason (Eds) Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), pp. 170-186. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635-657. Kahneman, K., & Miller, D. T. (2003). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 80, 136-153. Karn, V. (1997) Ethnic penalties' and racial discrimination in education, employment and housing: conclusions and policy implications, in: V. Karn (Ed.) Ethnicity in the 1991 Census--Volume 4 (London, HMSO). Levin, S. L. (2003). A social psychological approach to understanding intergroup attitudes in the United States and Israel. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles. Levitas, R. (1996) The concept of social exclusion and the new Durkheimian hegemony, Critical Social Policy, 16(1), 46, pp. 5-20. Lister, R. (Ed.) (1996) Charles Murray and the Underclass: The Developing Debate (London, IEA). Marshall, T.H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Mason, D. (1995) Race & Ethnicity in Britain (London, Oxford University Press). McConahay, J. B. (2003). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Miles, R. (1993) Racism After `Race Relations' (London, Routledge). Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (2001). The role of beliefs and feelings in guiding behavior: The mismatch model. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.). The construction of social judgments (pp. 277-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Minard, R. D. (1952). Race relations in the Pocahontas Coal Field. Journal of Social Issues, 8, 29-44. Mullins, D. & Niner, P. (1996) Common Housing Registers: An Evaluation of Current Practice (London, Housing Corporation). NURAS (1993) House Condition Survey: Final Report (Housing and Urban Regeneration Consultants (for City of Bradford Metropolitan Council)). Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell. Owen, D. & Ratcliffe, P. (1996) Changing Spatial Location Patterns of Ethnic Minorities in Great Britain, 1981-1991 (London, Final Report to the ESRC) (award no. H507255127). Peach, C. & Byron, M. (1993) Caribbean tenants in council housing: `race', class and gender, New Community, 19(3), pp. 407-423. Phillips, D. & Karn, V. (1992) Race and housing in a property owning democracy, New Community, 18(3), pp. 355-369. Phillips, D. (1986) What Price Equality? GLC Housing Policy Report 9 (London, GLC). Pratto, F. (2000). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191-263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pratto, F., Lui, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (2002). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 741-763. Ratcliffe, P. (1981) Racism and Reaction: A Profile of Handsworth (London, RKP). Ratcliffe, P. (1996a) Social Geography and Ethnicity in Britain: Geographical Spread, Spatial Concentration and Internal Migration. Ethnicity in the 1991 Census Series, Volume 3 (London, HMSO). Ratcliffe, P. (1996b) `Race' and Housing in Bradford: Addressing the Needs of the South Asian, African and Caribbean Communities (Bradford, Bradford Housing Forum). Ratcliffe, P. (1997) `Race', ethnicity and housing differentials in Britain, in: V. Karn (Ed.) Employment, Education and Housing Among the Ethnic Minority Population of Britain. Ethnicity in the 1991 Census Series, Volume 4 (London, HMSO). Rees, P. & Phillips, D. (1996) Geographical Spread: the national picture, in: P. Ratcliffe (Ed.) (1996a: op. cit.). Reicher, S. & Hopkins, N. (2003). Self-category constructions in political rhetoric: An analysis of Thatcher's and Kinnock's speeches concerning the British miners' strike (2002-85). European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 353-371. Reynolds, K. J., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., Nolan, M., & Dolnik, L. (2000). Responses to powerlessness: Stereotypes as an instrument of social conflict. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 275-290. Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 37, 427-434. Sarre, P., Phillips, D. & Skellington, R. (1989) Ethnic Minority Housing: explanations and policies (Aldershot, Avebury). Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (2003). Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative process in survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sidanius, J. (2000, July). Social identity theory, system-justification theory, and social dominance theory: An attempt at integration. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Seattle, WA. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2002). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173-211). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Federico, C. M. (2004, August). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. Manuscript presented at the Stanford Conference on the Psychology of Legitimacy, Stanford University. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Lui, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41-67. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (2003). Racism, conservativism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservativism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476-490. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Rabinowitz, J. L. (2002). Gender, ethnic status, and ideological asymmetry: A social dominance interpretation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 25, 194-216. Simpson, A. (1981) Stacking the Decks (Nottingham, Nottingham Community Relations Council). Skellington, R. (1996) `Race' in Britain Today (London, Sage/Open University Press). Smith, S.J. (1989) The Politics of `Race' and Residence: Citizenship, Segregation and White Supremacy in Britain (Cambridge, Polity). Smith, S.J. (1991) `Race' and housing in Britain. Paper prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation `Race' and Housing Workshop, University of York, 4-5 April. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (2003). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214. Tajfel, H. (2004a). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (2004b). The social psychology of minorities. London: Migrated Rights Group. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2003). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24), Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Turner, J. C. (2000, July). The prejudiced personality and social change: A self-categorization perspective. Henri Tajfel Memorial Lecture presented at the Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Oxford, UK. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (2004). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Veenstra, K., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). Willingness to participate in industrial protest: Exploring social identification in context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 45-63. Watt, P. & Stenson, K. (1998) The Street: `it's a bit dodgy around here', in: T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures (London, Routledge), pp. 248-265. Webster, C. (1996) Local heroes: violent racism, localism and spacism amongst Asian and white young people, Youth and Policy, 53, pp. 15-27. Wicklund, R. A. (2001). Zero-variable theories and the psychology of the explainer. New York: Springer. Wilson, T. D., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Attitudes as temporary constructions. In L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgement (pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Read More