Advertisement

The Hasidic Community of Stamford Hill: Non-economic Micro-segregation

  • Shlomit Flint AsheryEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

The case study of Stamford Hill offers a relevant example of interactions between population groups similar in many respects, but each guarding its unique cultural identity. At the municipal level, the research area of Stamford Hill is a segregated Haredi neighbourhood, where demographic, social and economic features have heightened the growing pressure of the population on urban space in recent decades. A closer look at the inner-neighbourhood level, however, exposes the essential “micro-segregation” mechanism that takes place both at the building and neighbourhood levels. The relatively high involvement of the leadership in the community’s daily life leads to a residential concentration of Hasidic communities within walking distance of the community’s religious institutions and overcrowding in these areas. Stamford Hill offers lessons to the literature on segregation and the broad field of inner-city dynamics. This chapter reveals the simultaneous influence of building- and neighbourhood-level factors on the segregation pattern, which contributes to estimating the role of residential dynamics in inner cities for retaining self-identities and reproducing social segregation. It is the individuals’ capacity for self-accountability that keeps the Hasidic community in Stamford Hill functioning ethically. The accepted norm whereby married women devote themselves to the socialisation of the younger generation and housekeeping places the responsibility for making a living mostly on the men. In particular, individuals are expected to organise their lives in a way that maintains religious commitments and communal identity while adapting and negotiating this adaptation to the modern reality in every aspect of their life. Within the Hasidic subcommunities, indirect collaboration within the wider Haredi society of Stamford Hill enables the Hasidic to contribute to the creation of a defined enclave that allows the conservation of lifestyles and cultures. The extended collaboration of the individuals, together with relatively weak community discipline, support and supervision, results in the heterogeneous residential pattern of the inner-city enclave of Stamford Hill.

Keywords

Hasidic Non-economic segregation Community discipline Supervision Enclave Stamford Hill 

References

  1. Alfasi N, Flint Ashery S, Benenson I (2013) Between the individual and the community: residential patterns of the Haredi population in Jerusalem. Int J Urban Reg Res 37(6):2152–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geogr Anal 27(2):93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastian B, Loughnan S, Koval P (2011) Essentialist beliefs predict automatic motor-responses to social categories. Group Process Intergroup Relat 14(4):559–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum A, Paulus PB (1987) Crowding. In: Handbook of environmental psychology, vol 1. pp 533–570Google Scholar
  5. Beckett HE (1942) Population density and the heights of buildings. Trans Illum Eng Soc 7(7_IEStrans):75–80Google Scholar
  6. Benenson I (2004) Agent-based modeling: from individual residential choice to urban residential dynamics. In: Spatially integrated social science: examples in best practice, vol 42, no 6–7. pp 67–95Google Scholar
  7. Benenson I, Omer I, Hatna E (2002) Entity-based modeling of urban residential dynamics: the case of Yaffo, Tel Aviv. Environ Plann B Plann Des 29(4):491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman E (2009) Voices of outreach: the construction of identity and maintenance of social ties among Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries. J Sci Study Relig 48(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumen O (2007) The gendered display of work: the midday scene in an ultra-orthodox street in Israel. Nashim J Jew Womens Stud Gend Issues 13:123–154Google Scholar
  10. Borjas GJ (1998) To ghetto or not to ghetto: ethnicity and residential segregation. J Urban Econ 44(2):228–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breheny M (2001) Densities and sustainable cities: the UK experience. In: Cities for the new millennium, pp 39–51Google Scholar
  12. Brown LA, Chung SY (2006) Spatial segregation, segregation indices and the geographical perspective. Popul Space Place 12(2):125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruch EE, Mare RD (2006) Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change. Am J Sociol 112(3):667–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng V (2009) Understanding density and high density. In: Designing high-density cities. Routledge, pp 37–51Google Scholar
  15. Chizhov OP, Koryakin VS, Davidovich NV, Kanevskiy ZM, Zinger EM, Bazheva VY, Khmelevskoi IF (1968) Glaciation of Novaya Zemlya. Glaciol IX Sect IGY Program 18:338Google Scholar
  16. Churchman A (1999) Disentangling the concept of density. J Plann Lit 13(4):389–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cimino R (2011) Neighborhoods, niches, and networks: the religious ecology of gentrification. City Community 10(2):157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark WA, Davies Withers S (1999) Changing jobs and changing houses: mobility outcomes of employment transitions. J Reg Sci 39(4):653–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahan M (1999) The ultra-orthodox Jews and municipal authority, part 1–income distribution in Jerusalem. Hebr Jerus Inst Isr Stud Res Ser 79:1–50Google Scholar
  20. Dougherty KD, Huyser KR (2008) Racially diverse congregations: organizational identity and the accommodation of differences. J Sci Study Relig 47(1):23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dudley CS, Roozen DA (2001) Faith communities today: a report on religion in the United States today. Hartford Institute for Religion Research, Hartford SeminaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Elior R (1987) The concept of god in Hekhalot mysticism. Jerus Stud Jew Thought 6:13–64Google Scholar
  23. Etkes E, Assaf D, Dan J (1999). Who believes not in the great leaders of all times. In: Etkes E, Assaf D, Dan J (eds) Studies of Hasidism. Hebrew University Press, Jerusalem, pp 125–149 [Hebrew]Google Scholar
  24. Flache A, Hegselmann R (2001) Do irregular grids make a difference? Relaxing the spatial regularity assumption in cellular models of social dynamics. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 4(4)Google Scholar
  25. Flint Ashery S (2015) Public welfare or sectarianism: a new challenge for planning. Plan Theory & Pract 16(3):299–318Google Scholar
  26. Flint Ashery S (2018a) Schelling-type micro-segregation in a Hasidic enclave of Stamford-Hill. Hous Stud.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1414160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flint Ashery S (2018b) Horizontal examination: micro-segregation mechanism in the diverse area of Whitechapel. In: Micro-residential dynamics, pp 25–34. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  28. Flint Ashery S (2018c) Effects of identity and belonging on residential experiences, perceptions and practices of the undocumented population in Whitechapel. In: Micro-residential dynamics, pp 73–94. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  29. Flint Ashery S, Alfasi N, Benenson I (2010) Micro-segregation of Haredim in Jerusalem. Israeli Sociol 12:81–110 (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
  30. Flint Ashery S, Benenson I, Alfasi N, Bekman Y (2012) Schelling-like residential dynamics in a Haredi neighbourhood in Jerusalem. In: Diappi L (ed) Emergent phenomena in housing markets. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  31. Flint S, Benenson I, Alfasi N (2012) Between Friends and strangers: micro-segregation in a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem. City Community 11(2):171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fossett M (2006) Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation: theoretical explorations using simulation analysis. J Math Sociol 30(3–4):185–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freud D (2007) Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work. DWP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Friedman M (1991) The Haredi ultra-orthodox society: sources trends and processes. The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Jerusalem (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  35. Giffinger R (1998) Segregation in Vienna: impacts of market barriers and rent regulations. Urban Stud 35(10):1791–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gonen A (2006) Between Torah learning and wage earning: the London experience and lessons for Israel. The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  37. Gottdiener M (1997) The theming of America: dreams, visions, and commercial spaces. Westview PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Green A (2001) Typologies of leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq. In: Assaf D (ed) Zaddik and devotees: historical and social aspects of Hasidism. The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, Jerusalem, pp 422–440 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  39. Gropius W (1935) Theatrebau. Reale Academia d’ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Han Y, Taylor JE (2016) Simulating the inter-building effect on energy consumption from embedding phase change materials in building envelopes. Sustain Cities Soc 27:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holman C, Holman N (2002) Torah, worship and acts of loving kindness: baseline indicators for the Charedi community in Stamford Hill. Interlink FoundationGoogle Scholar
  42. Iceland J (2004) Beyond black and white: metropolitan residential segregation in multi-ethnic America. Soc Sci Res 33(2):248–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ihlanfeldt KR, Scafidi B (2002) Black self-segregation as a cause of housing segregation: evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. J Urban Econ 51(2):366–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Interlink (2010) The spatial needs of the Charedi community in Stamford HillGoogle Scholar
  45. Jacobs K, Manzi T (2014) Investigating the new landscapes of welfare: housing policy, politics and the emerging research agenda. Hous Theory Soc 31(2):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnston R, Poulsen M, Forrest J (2007) The geography of ethnic residential segregation: a comparative study of five countries. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97(4):713–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kasarda DJ (1978) Urbanization, community, and the metropolitan problem. In: Street D (ed) Handbook of contemporary urban life. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 27–57Google Scholar
  48. Lipman VD (1962) The rise of Jewish suburbia. Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England) 21:78–103.Google Scholar
  49. Lofland HL (2009) The public realm: exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. Aldine Transaction Publications, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  50. Longley PA, Mesev V (2002) Measurement of density gradients and space-filling in urban systems. Pap Reg Sci 81(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lupo J (2004) Can Shas restore past glory. The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  52. Malpass P (2000) The discontinuous history of housing associations in England. Hous Stud 15(2):195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin L, Leslie M, March L (eds) (1972) Urban space and structures, no. 1. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Mills ES, Hamilton BW (1984) Urban economics scott. Foresman and Company, GlenviewGoogle Scholar
  55. Peach C (2006) Islam, ethnicity and South Asian religions in London 2001 census. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31(3):353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Portugali J, Benenson I, Omer I (1994) Sociospatial residential dynamics: stability and instability within a self-organizing city. Geogr Anal 26(4):321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rapoport A (1975) Toward a redefinition of density. Environ Behav 7(2):133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rey SJ, Folch DC (2011) Impact of spatial effects on income segregation indices. Comput Environ Urban Syst 35(6):431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sakoda JM (1971) The checkerboard model of social interaction. J Math Sociol 1(1):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schelling TC (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1(2):143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schelling T (1974) On the ecology of micromotives. In: The corporate society. Palgrave, London, pp 19–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schelling T (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Schnell I, Benjamini Y (2005) Globalisation and the structure of urban social space: the lesson from Tel Aviv. Urban Stud 42(13):2489–2510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sharma M (2012) A geographic perspective on intra-urban racial/ethnic diversity, segregation, and clustering in Knoxville, Tennessee: 1990–2000. Appl Geogr 32(2):310–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Speare A, Goldstein S, Frey WH (1975) Residential mobility, migration, and metropolitan change. Ballinger Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  66. Stokols D (1972) On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. Psychol Rev 79(3):275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tausch N, Hewstone M, Schmid K, Hughes J, Cairns E (2011) Extended contact effects as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts. Group Process Intergroup Relat 14(2):239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Telles EE (1995) Structural sources of socioeconomic segregation in Brazilian metropolitan areas. Am J Sociol 100(5):1199–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waterman S, Kosmin B (1986) Mapping an unenumerated ethnic population: Jews in London. Ethn Racial Stud 9(4):484–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waterman S, Kosmin BA (1988) Residential patterns and processes: a study of Jews in three London boroughs. Trans Inst Br Geogr 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang T, Lin G (2007) A decomposition of Moran’s I for clustering detection. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:6123–6137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and EnvironmentBar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations