Material Realities vs. Ideological Narratives: The Spatial Argument Against Muslims in Britain
-
In British integrationist discourse, particularly across the right-wing and center-left, there exists a deliberate manipulation of material realities and ideological beliefs to rationalize racism. This spatial argument, often wielded by both conservative and liberal voices, reframes the effects of systemic inequality as deliberate acts of self-segregation by Muslims, thereby blaming these communities for racism. However, when analyzing the material conditions that contribute to residential patterns, a vastly different picture emerges—one that integrationist discourse systematically erases to uphold the idea that Muslims are inherently resistant to British values and integration.
Materially, the formation of Muslim-majority neighbourhoods cannot be reduced to mere “choice” but rather is rooted in the legacies of Britain’s colonial past, industrial decline, and racialized economic policies. These communities were often pushed into dense, economically deprived areas by factors beyond their control, including deindustrialization that disproportionately affected immigrant populations, white flight that restructured urban demographics, and institutionalized racism in housing and employment. Such structural forces create “spatial divides” not as evidence of Muslim rejection of British values, but as manifestations of a racial hierarchy deeply embedded in British society.
Yet, integrationist discourse manipulates these divides to project an ideological narrative. Right-wing commentators have long framed cultural diversity as an existential threat to British cohesion, suggesting that Muslims “choose” to separate themselves into insular “ghettos” out of a desire to maintain distinct values at odds with British nationalism. Following the 2001 riots and the post-9/11 global climate, liberal commentators began echoing these sentiments, asserting that excessive tolerance of multiculturalism had allowed Muslims to isolate themselves, thereby cultivating extremism and anti-British sentiment. In this ideological framing, the formation of Muslim neighbourhoods is stripped of historical and socio-economic context and recast as a “deliberate choice” to reject British identity.
This narrative accomplishes several aims. First, it deflects attention from the structures that perpetuate segregation and racism, such as exclusionary housing policies and discriminatory practices in education and employment. It permits the blame for racism to be shifted onto Muslim communities themselves, suggesting that the dismantling of racism depends upon their willingness to “integrate” or “assimilate.” Figures like David Goodhart, for instance, downplay racist hostility towards asylum seekers as a rational response to cultural differences rather than an expression of prejudice. In this way, concerns about Muslim communities are positioned not as racist but as legitimate anxieties about national security and social cohesion, thus normalizing racist sentiments as defensible reactions to perceived threats.
Moreover, this ideological maneuver absolves individuals and institutions in power from accountability for the systemic racism they uphold. It offers a convenient scapegoat in Muslim communities, claiming that if these communities would simply “integrate” more fully, racism would naturally dissipate. Yet this perspective ignores the fact that racism is not a reaction to diversity alone; it is a deeply rooted system of discrimination that persists regardless of integration. Integrationist discourse, then, serves to maintain Britain’s racial hierarchy under the guise of promoting a cohesive society, allowing those in power to evade scrutiny while deflecting blame onto the marginalized.
Ultimately, British integrationist discourse weaponizes spatial divides to uphold and justify institutional racism, placing responsibility on Muslim communities for their own exclusion while ignoring the structures and policies that enforce these divides. This spatial argument reveals the paradox at the heart of integrationist discourse: a demand for assimilation that itself relies on the perpetuation of racial and cultural hierarchies.