(i) Preference for mixed or socially homogeneous streets

It is widely assumed in town - planning circles that, to achieve a well integrated community and to avoid architecture monotony, it is necessary to avoid, single - class residential areas. Consequently, it was considered opportune to attempt to discover, in the course of this inquiry, the views of the people themselves on this important issue of policy. A series of questions was therefore framed which dealt, in general terms, with this matter (although the problem is sufficiently important to merit an entirely separate inquiry.) Informants were asked if they thought that their street was one in which every one was of the same social level, or if people of all levels lived together in it. All were then asked if they had ever lived in the alternative type of street, and which they preferred, or thought they would prefer. Finally, people who preferred a street having residents of the same social level were asked whether they preferred these to be working, middle or higher class. (4)

It must be emphasised that, in asking these questions, the investigator touched upon a subject which today is hedged about with prudery and taboo. That is to say, there was the danger that informants would not speak frankly on the matter of class in the fear that this would meet with social disapproval. The desirability of a classless society is held today by such large sections of the populace that some who do not sincerely share this view may find themselves forced outwardly to subscribe to it. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties, the view of the interviewers was that the questions discovered, in broad terms, informants’ real opinions on this subject.

It was sometimes suggested, however, that income and education are not, or were not thought by informants to be, adequate indications of class differences. For example, some who said they preferred working class people qualified this by specifying “decent” working class, whilst a few others, to make the same distinction, specified “middle” class. Again, what may have been an indication of a certain sentimentality of outlook on this problem appeared in the responses of informants who said that, “of course”, mixed class streets were preferable, but that they personally would prefer single class streets because the former “would not work”. Probably the most pronounced instance of this kind was the informant who said. “Following my political views, I ought to say ‘mixed’; but you've got to think of the children.”

Turning now to the results of the questions themselves, it can be seen from the table below that the majority of Willesden people considered themselves to be living in streets of mixed social character:

It was noteworthy that, the higher the economic group, the greater the proportion of informants who said that their street was mixed in social character (1) Similarly, the professional and managerial occupation group also had a higher proportion who described their street in this way. (2) Consequently, this (if an accurate description of their street) appears to indicate a greater tendency for the better - off to live in proximity to members of other classes. Whether this is a matter of choice, of course, is another matter: the better - off are in any case outnumbered by the poor, and in these days of housing shortage few are able to exercise choice in selecting their home. In any case, analysis showed there to be no difference in the proportion of persons who were dissatisfied with their present housing as between those living in streets of mixed, or the same, social level. Yet a considerably larger proportion of persons in the highest economic group living in mixed streets said that they had formerly lived in single class streets; (3) and the professional and managerial group similarly had a larger proportion (4) than other occupation groups who had this experience.

It may be, therefore, as has already been suggested, that the better - off were living in mixed streets because they could find nowhere else to live. Indeed, when all people who had had experience of both types of street were asked which they preferred, almost two - thirds favoured the single class street:

It is likely that the widespread dwelling sub - division in Willesden is a relevant factor here. For example, the larger dwellings of the higher economic group were formerly occupied by single households. With increasing housing shortage, some of these large dwellings have been sub - divided. The probable result has been, therefore, that streets hitherto of a single - class, higher economic group, character became transformed into mixed streets, with some wealthier single households remaining in their dwellings but now

adjacent to sub-divided houses containing less well-to-do families. Such a process is also relevant in considering the small incidence of neighbourly relations in the Borough.

Moreover, the fact that only one type of street had been experienced made little difference to the proportion favouring the single class street. (1) It follows that, whatever may be the planning argument for mixing the classes, these results show conclusively that the majority of the Willesden population, at least, would not be in favour of it.

There was a number of group variations in preference, although in every case the majority favoured the single class street. One of the most interesting occurred in the analysis by age (2) , which showed that, the older the individual, the more frequently he preferred the single class street. The proportion stating this preference rose consistently from 56% of those aged 20-29, to 68% of those aged 60 or over. No doubt had this proportion of the younger people been smaller (say something considerably less than 50%) the outlook for mixing classes in the new streets would have been brighter - for those who wished to move to a new town were predominantly the young. (3) As it is, while the range between the oldest and the youngest groups was fairly large (12%), the majority of the Young, as of the old, preferred the single class street.

Further analysis, by economic group and by occupation, showed only small variations. But it was noticeable that the lowest and the highest economic groups preferred the single class street rather more frequently. (4) This is borne out by the occupational analysis, showing that the professional, and the unskilled workers, were amongst those rather more in favour of the single class street. The differences are too small, however, to justify any speculation on their cause. Nevertheless, it is notable that in all groups more than half the people were not in favour of mixing the classes.

When those who favoured the single class street were asked which class they would prefer to live with, 51% stated a preference for “working class” people, 45% for “Middle class” and 1% for “higher class”. The definition of these terms was the informant's own. Of similar interest were the group differences in preference. Particularly noticeable, for example, were the differing views as between those now living in mixed or single class streets. It was clear (5) that persons now living in a mixed street much more frequently preferred to live in a single’ class street of middle class people. This is undoubtedly due, at least in great degree, to the fact that informants usually characterised their present street as “mixed” when they considered themselves of superior social status to their neighbours. This being so, these informants clearly chose the class to which they felt they rightfully belonged. “Respectable” working class people would wish to leave “rough” working class neighbours; middle class people would wish to leave working class neighbours, and so on. (6) It may appear, therefore, that the general preference noted above for single class streets is a reflection of social ambition - or, as informants might put it, a preference to be “amongst one's own kind”. That this is so is confirmed by an analysis by economic group, which showed that, as economic status rose, the larger was the proportion of informants who said that they would prefer to live exclusively amongst the middle class.

Similarly, the desire to live amongst working class people appeared least frequently amongst the professional group, and most frequently amongst the unskilled workers and labourers (1) In these analyses, too, it becomes clear once again that informants now living in what they considered “mixed” streets manifested more often a desire to move to single class streets of higher social status, than did persons living in single class streets. That is, experience of mixing confirmed the desire to move to single class streets.

Summing up, then, it may be said that informants’ expression of class preferences confirms their earlier preference for single class streets. That is to say, Willesden people on the whole wish to live amongst others of their own social status. While there was some hesitation in the middle occupational and economic groups as to which class they wished to identify themselves with, generally speaking informants chose the social class appropriate to their economic group (and, to some extent, to their occupation) there was a residue of people who preferred as neighbours a class “inappropriate” to their status: some labourers wished to live amongst the middle class, and some professional people amongst the working class.

(ii) Social relationships with relatives and friends in Willesden

The data presented above does not give the impression of a population largely satisfied, and upon friendly terms, with their neighbours - for example, a considerable proportion of the people were, it appears, living amongst neighbours to whom they felt themselves superior. (2) How far, then, can these people be expected to have developed friendship relations within the Borough? Do they, perhaps, compensate for a paucity of friendship by a highly developed wider family life? The majority of the population, at least, had relatives living in Willesden, (3) as the following table indicates:

The mere presence of relatives within the Borough, of course, does not necessarily mean that social integration has resulted; that is to say, relatives may mutually ignore each other. However, three-quarters of the people having relatives in Willesden said that they “saw” them once a week or more.

This is, perhaps, a rather surprising result, although it is natural that family relationships should be maintained if its members are living in the same locality. Furthermore, the possibility must not be ignored that informants mentioned, or remembered, only the relatives they saw. Nevertheless, the general picture suggested by this table is of the existence of a considerable, and intimate, life of family relationships. But while the incidence of this is large, it should not be exaggerated. Thus while 75% of the people having relatives in the Borough saw them at least once a week, the people who did this comprised only 45% of the whole population (i. e., 1395 persons from the total sample of 3076).

Approximately the same proportion of men as of women had relatives in the Borough, but women saw their relatives slightly more frequently than the men (77% of the women saw them once a week or more, compared with 72% of the men). The age of the informant, too, was a factor of some importance, since analysis showed that, taking men and women together, the proportion having relatives in Willesden declined consistently as age increased (from 70% of those aged 20 - 29 to 55% of those aged 60 or more.) (1) This decline was apparent among both men and women, when these were analysed separately. On the other hand, increasing age made little difference to the frequency with which relatives were visited.

In addition, it was found (2) that individuals with relatives in the Borough were more common amongst those who had come there in the years up to 1918 (77%) than amongst those who first came in 1940 or later (41%). It should be borne in mind, in interpreting this that amongst those who had come since 1940 none could have been born in Willesden, since only people aged 18 and over were interviewed. But amongst those who came before 1918, any who had been born in Willesden would have been included. Thus, few of those coming since 1940 were likely to have parents in the Borough, although many of the earlier - comers might have had them there.

Finally, it was considered possible that the presence or absence of relatives in the Borough might be an important factor in influencing the degree to which an individual entered into social relations with his neighbours. Analysis of the replies to the question concerning neighbourly relations, however, showed that whether an informant had, or had not, relatives locally had very little influence. There was a slight tendency for those without relatives to co - operate less with their neighbours, but the difference was too small to affect the general conclusion.

Parallel data on friendships did not differ significantly from that concerning relatives.

(iii) Social relationships with relatives and friends in other parts of London

Informants were asked the same questions concerning their relatives and friends living in parts of London other than Willesden. It was clear that larger proportion had relatives outside (68%) than within (61%) the Borough. At the same time, it was equally clear that the necessity for travelling a greater distance reduced very markedly the frequency with which visits were exchanged. It will be re-called that 75% of those having relatives in Willesden itself said they saw them at least once a week. In the case of relatives further afield, this proportion was reduced by almost two-thirds:

It cannot be said, therefore, that the strength of blood-ties is sufficient to overcome the obstacle of distance. People exchanged visits with their friends. in Willesden far more frequently than they visited their relatives outside the Borough.

It was found that women paid visits rather more frequently than the men; but other analyses did not reveal any significant group differences, either in the proportion having relatives, or in the frequency of visiting.

The data on friends living in other parts of London was very similar in character to that concerning friends living within the Borough, although frequency of visiting had much the same distribution as for relatives outside Willesden. The conclusion is therefore clear that relative proximity, even in London where transport facilities are good, is a factor of very considerable importance in maintaining social relationships between relatives and friends. At least in the case of Willesden, a large proportion of the social intercourse that exists appears to take place within the Borough itself.

(iv) Neighbourly Relations

A further key to the problem of social life in Willesden was provided by data collected on neighbourly relations. It was necessary at the outset, however, to make clear to informants that such relations were not regarded either favourably or unfavourably by the interviewer. With this in mind, therefore, the question was framed in the following manner: “Some people like to make some of their friends amongst the people in the same street as, or nearby, their home. Others prefer to keep themselves to themselves at home, making their friends elsewhere, although being on quite good terms with their neighbours. Do you do any of the following with your neighbours?: Help each other in any way?; Visit each other at home?; Go out together?”

In general it appeared that, for Willesden people, “neighbours” were, by definition persons with whom one was not upon terms of friendship. Earlier questions showed that informants were usually careful in drawing a distinction between “friends” and “acquaintances”. Thus, a neighbour with whom one is on intimate terms tended to be removed from that category into that of friends, although these categories are not mutually exclusive. A characteristic instance of this was the informant who said, “We are very neighbourly in this district, and we would always help each other - but we wouldn't make friends of each other.”

In some groups, too, it seems (according to interviewers’ reports) that status is lost by those who do “mix” with their neighbours, although willingness to help is approved. Consequently, there may exist more intimate neighbourly relations than were apparent from the results of the questionnaire. The possibility of an underestimate is further supported by the common interpretation of “neighbours” in the narrower sense of those living “next door” or “next door but one”. Persons living at a distance greater than this from the informant's own dwelling were commonly not looked upon as “neighbours” at all.