The previous chapter examined attitudes to immigration into the UK and argued that the majority of the population are concerned about this issue, particularly about the labour-market impacts of immigration and perceived effects on public services and housing. These attitudes matter – they can influence voter behaviour and also circumscribe the scope for policy makers to enact progressive immigration policy. Attitudes matter because they influence social interactions and how welcoming and empathetic people are to newcomers. But the previous chapter argued that for many people these attitudes are formed and reproduced without much social interaction with migrants. Yet it is the process of meaningful social contact that has the capacity to change attitudes, to demystify the stranger and help break down prejudice.

This chapter examines social encounters in greater detail and in the context of events in Peterborough, Wisbech and south London. It argues that some neighbourhoods are better equipped than others to manage tensions associated with migration. More optimistically, it suggests that attitudes can change and that conflicts can be resolved if the right conditions prevail. Returning to the definition of social cohesion – the capability of people and places to manage conflict and change – the chapter proposes that two sets of attributes influence the extent to which neighbourhoods deal with tensions associated with migration. First, transversal space is important – as sites of meaningful social contact between different groups and as sites for civic debate where views about ethnic difference and immigration can be renegotiated. Second, political leadership is crucial, in terms of the messages that it sends out, the type of democratic debate it encourages and policy and planning to deal with sources of tension.

Sites of encounter in Peterborough

As noted in Chapter Five, research on integration and social cohesion has recently taken a ‘convivial’ turn, and reflects a new emphasis on social relationships in situations of ‘everyday’ diversity (Valentine, 2008; Cook et al, 2011; Jensen et al, 2013; Wessendorf, 2011; 2013). This writing draws on Gilroy (2004), Keith (2005) and Brubaker et al (2008), who argue that discourses about ‘race’ and ethnicity are experienced and reproduced in everyday institutions such as workplaces and public space.