Peach, C., (1996) Good segregation, bad segregation…

planningperpectPeach, C., (1996) Good segregation, bad segregation, Planning Perspectives, 11(4): pp.379-398

It seems as though Peach’s (1996) notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ segregation have been very influential in the academic debate on segregation, as this work is regularly referred to. Within the core notion that there are two ‘types’ of segregation, “The paper argues that there is a critical distinction between the black American ghetto and other forms of segregation” (Peach, 1996: 379). The article has a strong bias towards quantitative data, ‘models’ and a few maps.

With the focus on ‘positive reasons for segregation’, Peach draws out group cohesion, language persistence, and defensive protection (with problematic reference to ‘herds’). On the negative side, Peach draws out underprivileged areas developing, discrimination, and unequal opportunities. The article draws on both American examples and European examples (with a strong bias on Britain and Ireland).

KW: Good segregation, Bad segregation, Ceri Peach, 1996, segregation, race, ethnicity, cohesion