Socialising with Diversity: Relational

Diversity through a Superdiversity Lens

1st Edition Fran Meissner (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/socialising-with-diversity-relational-diversity-through-a
-superdiversity-lens-1st-edition-fran-meissner-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Suicide through a Peacebuilding Lens Katerina Standish

https://textbookfull.com/product/suicide-through-a-peacebuilding-
lens-katerina-standish/

Third Wave Feminism and Transgender Strength Through

Diversity Edward Burlton Davies

https://textbookfull.com/product/third-wave-feminism-and-
transgender-strength-through-diversity-edward-burlton-davies/

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Dana A. Telem

https://textbookfull.com/product/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-
dana-a-telem/

Advancing Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice

Through Human Systems Engineering 1st Edition Rod D.
Roscoe (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/advancing-diversity-inclusion-
and-social-justice-through-human-systems-engineering-1st-edition-
rod-d-roscoe-editor/
Siloed Diversity Catherine Gomes

https://textbookfull.com/product/siloed-diversity-catherine-
gomes/

Diversity in deaf education 1st Edition Lampropoulou

https://textbookfull.com/product/diversity-in-deaf-education-1st-
edition-lampropoulou/

Facilitating Learning in the 21st Century Leading

through Technology Diversity and Authenticity 1st
Edition Dirk T. Tempelaar

https://textbookfull.com/product/facilitating-learning-in-
the-21st-century-leading-through-technology-diversity-and-
authenticity-1st-edition-dirk-t-tempelaar/

Friendship and Diversity Carol Vincent

https://textbookfull.com/product/friendship-and-diversity-carol-
vincent/

Diversity of Ecosystems 1st Edition Mahamane Ali

(Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/diversity-of-ecosystems-1st-
edition-mahamane-ali-editor/
 GLOBAL DIVERSITIES

Series Editors: S. Vertovec,

P. van der Veer and A. Shachar

SOCIALISING
WITH DIVERSITY
Relational Diversity through
a Superdiversity Lens

Fran Meissner
 Global Diversities

Series Editors
Steven Vertovec
Socio-Cultural Diversity Department
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic
Diversity
Göttingen, Germany

Peter van der Veer

Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic
Diversity
Göttingen, Germany

Ayelet Shachar
Ethics, Law, and Politics
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic
Diversity
Göttingen, Germany
Over the past decade, the concept of ‘diversity’ has gained a leading place
in academic thought, business practice, politics and public policy across the
world. However, local conditions and meanings of ‘diversity’ are highly
dissimilar and changing. For these reasons, deeper and more comparative
understandings of pertinent concepts, processes and phenomena are in
great demand. This series will examine multiple forms and configurations
of diversity, how these have been conceived, imagined, and represented,
how they have been or could be regulated or governed, how different
processes of inter-ethnic or inter-religious encounter unfold, how con-
flicts arise and how political solutions are negotiated and practiced, and
what truly convivial societies might actually look like. By comparatively
examining a range of conditions, processes and cases revealing the con-
temporary meanings and dynamics of ‘diversity’, this series will be a key
resource for students and professional social scientists. It will represent a
landmark within a field that has become, and will continue to be, one of
the foremost topics of global concern throughout the twenty-first century.
Reflecting this multi-disciplinary field, the series will include works from
Anthropology, Political Science, Sociology, Law, Geography and Religious
Studies. While drawing on an international field of scholarship, the series
will include works by current and former staff members, by visiting fellows
and from events of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and
Ethnic Diversity. Relevant manuscripts submitted from outside the Max
Planck Institute network will also be considered.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/15009
 Fran Meissner

Socialising with
Diversity
Relational Diversity through a Superdiversity Lens
Fran Meissner
Urban and Regional Sociology
University of Kassel
Kassel, Germany

Global Diversities
ISBN 978-1-137-47438-4 ISBN 978-1-137-47439-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-47439-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946192

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Cover illustration: Modern building window © saulgranda / Getty

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London.
For Amalia and Fritz
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book and its findings have only become possible with the help of
those people who took the time to talk to me about their networks. Those
who did not mind a curious researcher tagging along to various social
events that ranged from intimately private to openly public. Respondents
and interlocutors who made it possible for me to think about how their
personal networks mattered within larger patterns of urban diversity. This
book is about those larger and abstract patterns and given its length but
also like any book of its type—only a partial account. As I continue to my
work with the more qualitative data collected as part of my fieldwork, I
hope to bring out more of the direct voices of those with whom I had the
opportunity to talk about diversity in London and Toronto and about
being social in these two cities. I encourage every reader to consult the
related publications list on the book’s website to find updated references.
I am also tremendously thankful to those who supported me intellectually
and socially in the process of doing fieldwork and writing up—particu-
lar thanks goes to those who have read earlier drafts of this manuscript,
mentors, and friends alike. The research for this book was made possible
through a fellowship at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious
and Ethnic Diversity. The book manuscript was completed whilst I was a
Max Weber Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the European University
Institute.

vii
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction — Socialising with Diversity 1

2 Exploring Superdiversity and Relational Diversity 15

3 How and Where to Point a Superdiversity Lens? 39

4 Visualising Relational Diversity — Finding Difference

in Similarity 65

5 Disentangling Multidimensional Homophily

and Describing Migrant Networks in Contexts
of Superdiversity 93

6 Concluding Socialising with Diversity 117

Index 125

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1 Share of migrants in the top 20 most numerous origin groups
compared to those origin groups with fewer migrants 7
Fig. 1.2 QR code to book website 12
Fig. 4.1 Crossover between three aspects of migration trajectories 66
Fig. 4.2 Legal status trajectories within right to stay and work category 69
Fig. 4.3 Direction of occupational trajectories 71
Fig. 4.4 Mean homophily values 79
Fig. 4.5 Boxplots for IQV distribution 82
Fig. 4.6 The relationship between predicted homophily and IQV 84
Fig. 4.7 Heatmap of multidimensional homophily patterns 87
Fig. 4.8 Homophily patterns restricted to a single aspect (share of
migrants in networks) 88
Fig. 5.1 Heatmap of homophily profile of clusters (based on
cluster medians) 99
Fig. 5.2 Comparing cluster and sample means: schematic representation 102
Fig. 5.3 Distribution of London and Toronto networks in the clusters 109

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Origins and counts of Pacific migrants living in

Toronto and London in 2011 41
Table 3.2 Sample distribution (in %) across different characteristics
of respondents 47
Table 3.3 Numbers of names elicited with different name
generator questions 51
Table 4.1 Moving through visa categories 69
Table 4.2 Number and percentage of respondents in different
occupations 70
Table 4.3 Potential for diversity amongst London and Toronto
social contacts 72
Table 4.4 Variables included in the analysis 74
Table 4.5 Homophily across the 54 networks 81
Table 5.1 Overview of variables included in the cluster analysis 97
Table 5.2 Cluster-specific range of homophily values 98
Table 5.3 Comparing cluster and sample means 101
Table 5.4 Membership matrix resulting from fuzzy c-means cluster
analysis 107

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction—Socialising with Diversity

Abstract Meissner commences her book by presenting social connectivi-

ties as central to urban migration-driven diversities. This focus moves away
from the dominant view of diversity as little more than a compendium
of ever more categories of difference. She embeds her discussion within
research on superdiversity to move beyond origin specificities as the pri-
mary concern in analysing network patterns. Meissner also emphasises the
importance of conducting research not only amongst migrants with large
origin groups at destination but also those whose number of co-migrants
is relatively small. Small migrant groups unsettle many of the common
assumptions about ethnic networks that habitually drive quantitative
explorations of migrant networks. This sets the scene for the remainder of
the book and a brief summary of each chapter is offered.

Keywords Small migrant groups • Diversification of diversity • Migrant

networks

Migration-driven diversities contribute to the dynamics of urban social

landscapes. Social connections are forged and disbanded as people arrive
and leave the city. The implications of this can no longer be thought about
through models that assume large, mostly homogenous migration streams
from few places to few places (Gamlen 2010; Vertovec 2007), nor can

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 1

F. Meissner, Socialising with Diversity,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-47439-1_1
2 F. MEISSNER

ideas about migration-driven diversities. We need to rethink and replace

older models with those that help us address social complexities. These are
most imminently evident where people from everywhere live in relative
proximity. If it is assumed that diversity implies continuous negotiations
of difference, rather than necessarily a homogenisation of differences, then
the contemporary city is a central hub and locus of an abundance of pro-
cesses of diversification. Can we make social connectivities a central con-
cern in how we think about urban migration-driven diversities?
This book builds on original research conducted in London (UK) and
Toronto (Canada) focused on the sociality practices of Pacific migrants
and New Zealand Māori migrants. Both London and Toronto are ‘cit-
ies of migration’—their social fabric is wrought with the implications of
international movement and the different patterns of diversity this implies.
Clearly both cities are home to people from virtually everywhere in the
world—each city in its own way is a world in one city. This dominant way
of describing diversity as a multiplicity of origin, cultural, and linguistic
groups is only part of the story of talking about migration-driven diver-
sified diversity. Focusing on variety too often neglects dynamic changes
that go hand in hand with population turnover. Making strong headway
the superdiversity notion challenges us to consider a multidimensionality
of differentiations and to include aspects such as migration, legal status,
and labour market trajectories in our analysis (Vertovec 2007). Centring
research on social connectivities and trajectory-based differentiations
removes some of the rigidity evident in enumerating difference through
statically defined categories.
This raises many questions. Those that remain at the heart of this
book link to ideas about post-migration networks maintained in cities.
For example, in a city where a substantial proportion of the population
is from somewhere else—who should one be social with? For Ravi, one
of my respondents in London, the answer to this question seemed clear.
Examining his ‘network map’—the piece of paper on which he had just
arranged the names of his social contacts—he said: ‘Mind you, looking at
this, I can honestly say, I need to get more English friends.’1 Ravi, who
is from Fiji, had been living in London for over ten years. He had named
social contacts from more than six countries, including three different
Pacific Island Nations, and three continents, contacts who worked in low
and high-skilled occupations and who he was able to draw on for social
support on various issues. Many of the individuals who I interviewed in
the course of my research associated ideas about desirable post-migration
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 3

social networks with the necessity of forging contacts with English people
or, in Toronto, with Canadians—with sometimes explicit assumptions
about what it means to be Canadian or English. Given the active promo-
tion of both cities as multicultural and as bringing people from everywhere
together, I noted, that whilst taking pride in their cosmopolitan outlook,
few respondents commented on this as an objective of their social engage-
ment in the city. Rarely if ever were other migration-related differentia-
tions deemed important. In other words, desirable networks were framed
in terms of socialising with diversity in only a very narrow sense.
Exclamations such as Ravi’s are unsurprising. They reveal deep-seated
ideas about what matters for post-migration social engagements and
how networks ought to be patterned in striving for social cohesion (cf.
Dobbernack 2014). Static conceptions of categorical diversity and linear
models of migrant integration, fuelling those ideas, need to be challenged
as they do not leave enough room to consider and better understand the
dynamics of diversity. If those ideas about the configurations of migration-
driven diversity translate into policies, these often prescribe measures for
generating social contacts between people who are culturally different
(Amin 2002; Vermeulen 2007). We know from a plethora of research that
positively altering the urban social fabric is not a simple task. Many factors
play into how social interactions pan out amongst a diverse urban popula-
tion. Indeed it can be noted how incredible it is that despite high levels of
difference—by and large—most cities are not hot beds of violent social con-
flict (Magnusson 2011). Shifting away from static and unidimensional ideas
about migration-driven diversity then opens a better lexicon for discussing
and making sense of the social complexities and dynamics of diversity. One
of the issues with diversity research remains that we lack different ways of
describing, measuring, and simply talking about migration-driven diversity
and its implications to fully move away from static and unifocal ideas.
It follows that while we live in an ‘age of diversity’ (Vertovec 2012:287)
there is still ample scope for critically and empirically investigating its wider
implications. The notion of superdiversity (Vertovec 2007) emphasises,
as noted, the multidimensional ways in which migration diversifies (city)
populations and it serves in this book as a starting point for exploring alter-
native ways of thinking about diversity that go beyond the enumeration of
difference. If contexts of urban diversity are those that provide at least the
potential for people of various backgrounds to socially engage—people
who have moved to the city from various places, via different migration,
4 F. MEISSNER

legal status, and labour market trajectories—then we need to better under-

stand those multiplicities of difference in social patterns.
Diversity is too frequently talked about in terms of a proliferation of
categories—as though it is possible to identify a clear taxonomy of dif-
ferences that can be broken down to its constituent parts. The sum of
those parts then becomes the most important characteristic of diversity.
This neglects how those differences are relevant for patterns of social-
ity. Sociality describes those ‘dynamic social processes in which any per-
son is inevitably engaged’ (Toren 2005:61–62). It refers to a ‘relational
matrix’ (Strathern 2005:53)—a matrix onto which, using network ana-
lytic approaches, we can map categorical diversity—an approach which I
develop in this book. This is done to operationalise relational diversity.
Visually representing data in ways that show but also help grasp social
complexities then becomes an important component in moving forward
with understanding the dynamics of diversity (throughout this book you
can use the QR Code reprinted at the end of this chapter in Fig. 1.2 to
access detailed online versions of figures).
Social relations forged exemplify different configurations of similarity
and difference between people, and the central argument of this book is
that they can be used as a proxy to describe diversity in relational rather
than just taxonomic terms—to feasibly see diversity as being more than
the sum of its parts. Diversity can then usefully be thought about and
measured by paying attention to patterns of sociality. In the course of
this book it will become clear how I put this into practice by using novel
combinations of data collection and analysis techniques. Patterns of soci-
ality emerge from practices of being social—the practices of forging and
maintaining social ties and groups. I demonstrate empirically that such
an approach allows for a better or at least a more nuanced discussion of
diversity. By analysing multidimensional differences in relational configu-
rations, we can engage with a so far empirically neglected way of thinking
about and measuring diversity as continuously emergent and dynamically
anchored in changing urban social landscapes.

EMPIRICAL FOCUS OF THE BOOK

With this book I offer both a critical discussion and an empirical opera-
tionalisation of relational diversity through a superdiversity lens. I con-
tend that patterns of sociality are best studied by eliciting information
about social relations and seeking to find how configurations of difference
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 5

and similarity can be read in those social relations. During the fieldwork
for this book I employed the still relatively novel technique—in the field
of studying urban diversity at least—of collecting information by means
of personal network interviews. I combined this with the more established
research method of participant observation. Through this I am able to
draw a differentiated picture of the social interactions and relations by
simultaneously taking multiple differences into account. I do however pri-
marily focus on how patterns of sociality can be gleaned from analysing
quantitative personal network data. The book thus adds to studying the
dynamics of diversity by using an analytical approach that continues to lag
behind the more rapidly growing field of ethnographic accounts of super-
diverse contexts (for some exceptions see: Aspinall 2012; Nathan 2011;
Stringer and Martin 2014).
Specifically I provide an empirical analysis of the social networks of
Pacific people and NZ Māori living in London and Toronto. Superdiversity
stresses looking beyond simple ethnic explanations in the emergence of
social patterns in cities. Superdiversity also shines a particular light on rec-
ognising smaller groups as part of diversity. How a regional origin focus
was part of developing a concrete and innovative approach to account
for both of these objectives is detailed in a later chapter. In more abstract
terms, the remainder of this introduction explains why the small group
focus of the empirical material is particularly well suited for recasting ideas
about how we analyse post-migration networks.

MIGRANT NETWORKS AND A SMALL GROUP FOCUS

When I started the research for this book I had one central question: What
networks do migrants with few co-migrants from the same origin forge
in exceptionally diverse cities? The literature on post-migration networks
seemed to exclusively focus on those moving in quite large numbers but
some of the associated assumptions about sociality practices certainly could
not equally hold for smaller groups. In other words my primary interest at
the start of the project was to establish whether migrants who in numer-
ous studies and policy documents were grouped together as ‘other’, due
to the small numbers of people moving from the same origin to the same
destination, could add in a significant way to research exploring patterns
of sociality in cities marked by diversity. Individuals moving in numeri-
cally smaller numbers arguably face particular circumstances in terms of
their sociality in highly diverse urban contexts. Would migrants from these
6 F. MEISSNER

smaller groups seek out their few co-migrants from the same country or
region of origin or would their social networks reflect the (super)diversity
of the city? I hypothesised the latter but found that this question can-
not be answered in terms of either/or. Once the complexities of superdi-
versity are recognised, both different propensities to seek co-migrants as
social contacts and diversity within networks played an important part in
explaining patterns of sociality.
There is often an implicit assumption in social science research that a focus
on publicly debated and large-scale social phenomena is of particular impor-
tance in contributing to an evidence-based understanding of social processes
and patterns. Typically the only time those present in small numbers take
centre stage is when they are framed as a threat to social order (Appadurai
2006). That the social relevance of research has to be easily quantifable is not
least perpetuated by funding structures. Theoretically, a largess bias creates
blind spots in our empirical grasp of diversity dynamics. Smaller cohorts are
clearly part of the diverse social landscapes we are interested in. To develop
a better understanding of sociality practices and patterns, social relations
between individuals taking place at the micro-scale are crucial for compre-
hending larger social phenomena. As Simmel already noted, even though
some of those relations may be framed as ‘apparently insignificant[, they]
may profitably be subjected to investigation’ (Simmel 1909:313).
Those ‘apparently insignificant’ relationships include those connections
that migrants from small groups maintain in cities marked by diversity.
Research about how migration transforms cities and how people living in
cities interact has predominantly adopted the perceived social relevance
argument. Those who moved in large numbers dominate our empirical
evidence—quantitative survey-based studies in particular are hampered by
a lack of sufficient data points about those who moved in smaller numbers.
Across the board reasoning about a particular group focus often com-
mences with the argument that the origin group of interest is one of the
largest migrant groups living in a particular city—often the migrant cohort
is amongst the top ten most numerous groups. This, it is argued, contrib-
utes to the importance of understanding the social and economic engage-
ment of migrants from those origins in those cities.
If we think about this logic, we can spin it to present a number-crunching
argument in favour of studying smaller groups. Taking the example of London
we can note that in 2011 roughly 37 % of the population were foreign-born.2
Focusing exclusively on the top ten most numerous origin groups would
imply systematically excluding from the analysis 60 % of the foreign-born
population and 22 % of the total city population—to set a benchmark the
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 7

largest origin group, people who moved from India, account for fewer than
9 % of the foreign-born population and 3.2 % of the total population.
If the focus was on the top 20 most numerous groups, this would still
imply disregarding more than 41 % of the foreign-born population and 15
% of the total population. The argument against systematically excluding
large shares of the population from our body of analysis certainly becomes
less pressing once we move into ‘really’ small numbers. For example, those
145 (out of 250) stated distinct origin places that accounted for fewer
than 2500 individuals in the 2011 census in total only comprised just
under 2.5 % of the foreign-born and less than 1 % of the total population.
Figure 1.1 makes the dimensions of those shares visible for both Toronto
and London. We can note the 20 largest groups in Toronto compared
to London make up a bigger share but those who have moved in smaller
numbers still make up a substantial part of that population.
What is usually done is to group those who have come in smaller num-
bers in the statistical category ‘other’. Given how much attention is paid
to where larger migrant groups have come from and how internally diverse
this ‘other’ category is, this seems to be wanting in terms of trying to
understand the social complexities of living in a city with people of diverse

Fig. 1.1 Share of migrants in the top 20 most numerous origin groups com-
pared to those origin groups with fewer migrants. To access this figure online:
http://socdiv.mmg.mpg.de/index.php/figures-chapter-1/
8 F. MEISSNER

origins and migration trajectories. The systematic neglect of small migrant

groups is one argument in favour of contributing to studies focoused on
small groups.
A second relevant argument is particularly applicable for discussing
post-migration networks and how they have been studied. The predomi-
nant large group focus in this area of research has inscribed a number of
nascent assumptions that are not as easily justified for migrants with fewer
co-migrants. For example, the basic assumption that same origin networks
will emerge. Brettell cautions:

[N]etwork theorists, especially those interested in the problem of ethnicity,

assume that networks based on common origins will inevitably emerge. This
concept of the urban ethnic community […] needs careful scrutiny, espe-
cially since community […] is not necessarily inevitable and cannot simply
be assumed. (2003:109)

Based on her research with Portuguese migrants in Toronto and Paris,

Brettell argues that different city contexts will strongly influence whether
increased social interactions of co-nationals develop. Even though she had
already issued this caution some 22 years earlier (Brettell 1981) an over-
whelming focus on post-migration networks in terms of ethnic communi-
ties prevails and can be challenged by introducing a superdiversity lens.
In terms of group size, debates about ethnic enclaves frequently take a
certain size and institutional completeness (cf. Breton 1964) of different
ethnic groups in different cities for granted (e.g., Bashi 2007; Clark and
Drinkwater 2002; Fong and Ooka 2002; Warman 2007). Similarly, stud-
ies that research ethnic residential segregation (e.g., Kim and White 2010;
Murdie and Ghosh 2010; Myles and Hou 2004; Simpson 2007), which
is frequently linked to the presence of group networks, require a particu-
lar group size to be able to detect clear patterns of segregation. A small
group focus thus inherently questions some of those assumptions as the
mechanisms for activating same origin networks are not necessarily driven
by clearly identifiable ethnic spaces.
By foregrounding the relevance of a diversified diversity in terms of
different origins, but also often in terms of different shares of migrant
and non-migrant populations living in cities, a small group focus can chal-
lenge another commonly evoked link in migration studies, where post-
migration networks are discussed in terms of degrees of social integration.
Building on Granovetter (1973) social links to non-migrants are fre-
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 9

quently assumed to be weak ties which imbue migrants with the bridging
social capital needed to be incorporated into society (Bommes 2011:250).
Expressed in simplistic terms, this type of social analysis (e.g., Esser 2001;
Ganter 2003) equates the share of non-migrant contacts with the suc-
cess or failure of migrants to have integrated into a society. Underlying
those types of research are ethnocentric positions and assumed linear
processes of incorporation that disregard the effects of different origin
groups interacting with each other. They are therefore difficult to defend
in urban situations marked by a diversified diversity, both of origins but
also of other aspects of migration-related diversification. As the statement
by Ravi—who I referred to at the beginning of this chapter—shows, it is
these unidimensional and relatively static ideas about migrant socialities
that become salient in what is deemed important about being social. It
is time to start discussing migrant networks through a superdiversity lens
to see how this will shift the way we speak about socialities in contexts of
migration-driven diversity.
A small group focus emphasises that ‘social networks should be seen
in relation to the demographic size of different ethnic-national groups
because the statistical chances of relating with somebody from a large
group are obviously higher than with a member of a small group or
category’ (Wimmer 2004:16). In the study where Wimmer emphasises
this argument, he asks ‘does ethnicity matter’ and finds that a direct link
between group size and variation in the social networks of different origin
groups does not translate. Based on comparing the composition of the
social networks of people living in three Swiss neighbourhoods who are of
a Swiss, Turkish, or Italian background, he finds that indeed his respon-
dents do disproportionally engage with others of the same background—
indeed ethnic Swiss would be least likely to maintain social networks with
migrants. Yet he also finds that those patterns are much more complex
once other aspects such as ‘profession, gender and other non-ethnic vari-
ables usually overlooked by the multiculturalist account of immigrant soci-
eties’ (Wimmer 2004:28) are taken into consideration. A superdiversity
lens emphasises such a broader engagement with understanding other
more or less migration-related aspects in exploring patterns of diversity.
This book engages with such a wider understanding of migration-
related diversity. The analysis this book offers remains exploratory but it
insistently adds to questions of how and where the lexicon for discuss-
ing migration-related diversifications through a superdiversity lens can
be expanded and analytically developed. The book is focused in its aims
10 F. MEISSNER

and covers a cohesive range of issues innovating by developing research

that can accommodate and make more accessible the social complexities
of migration-driven diversity. I subdivided the analysis into four central
chapters, each tackling a different aspect of, or approach to, researching
relational diversity through a superdiversity lens.

ORGANISATION OF THE BOOK

Exploring multidimensional patterns implies recognising and grasping
the resultant social complexity. To avoid the axiomatic conclusion that
‘things are more complex’ (Hylland Eriksen 2007:1059) we need innova-
tive approaches to researching and analysing those patterns. The approach
taken in this book is to, where useful, visually represent those complexities
and patterns of sociality3 and to use pattern detection analysis as a data-
driven way for finding new ways of talking about migrant networks and
migration-related diversity. To be able to do this, I have to address a num-
ber of questions regarding the critical appropriation of superdiversity and its
operationalisation. I devote two of the four central chapters to these tasks
and present the empirical analysis of my specific case study in the remaining
two chapters before drawing insights together in the concluding remarks.
Chapter 2 develops the theoretical underpinnings of the book. It fulfils
the central task to critically engage with the superdiversity notion that
was first introduced by Vertovec some ten years ago (Vertovec 2005).
Those readers not familiar with the term and its uptake in the literature
are here in detail introduced to what superdiversity is about. I argue that
the notion of ‘superdiversity’ implies an investigation of diversity that goes
well beyond the nature of migration origins and trajectories. I explain how
superdiversity offers a useful and promising lens for changing dominant
ways of thinking about migration-driven diversity. This kind of appropria-
tion is only possible if we are very clear about how superdiversity is used,
and I suggest that it is necessary to distinguish between superdiversity as a
malleable social science concept—as sets of variables that researchers con-
junctively investigate—and superdiversity as context where these variables
play out in complex social patterns. Chapter 2 also defines and delineates
relational diversity and why making it accessible is a needed and necessary
progression from thinking about diversity in categorical terms.
Chapter 3 takes on practical challenges associated to implementing
research through a superdiversity lens. Aspects discussed focus on (1)
using a fuzzy category to identify a research population, (2) defining a
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 11

study’s set of superdiversity variables, and (3) locating research in two

fieldsites and broadening ideas about how this can support analysis. With
this focus Chap. 3 encourages an active engagement with the research
process in making sense of the data that is collected. Chapters 4 and 5 are
focused on the empirical case study and putting the analytical promise of
relational diversity studied through a superdiversity lens into practice.
Chapter 4 makes use of novel data visualisations to operationalise and
make apparent what relational diversity might look like. I emphasise that
categorical diversity in a given population does not necessarily translate into
relational diversity. I draw on two easily understood network measures to
demonstrate this. Visualisation supported representations of data can make
complex patterns much more accessible, surpassing side-by-side analysis
of difference and engaging with the multidimensionality a superdiversity
lens calls for. Data visualisations are becoming an ever more important
component of social scientific analysis (Yau 2011), and an increased use
and incorporation of graphic data representations will enhance our visual
data literacy and the possibilities for the active engagement of readers with
the data that they are presented with. For studying diversity it is important
to move beyond visual models that map migrants as static actors onto the
urban space but to develop ideas of how else we can picture configura-
tions of diversity. Mapping diversity can be done through abstract data
representations that do not necessarily require commonly used geospatial
maps. I here focus on multidimensional differences rather than limiting
my analysis to showing the presence or absence of migrants in networks.
Chapter 4 then shows how we might approach understanding multidi-
mensionally configured patterns of differentiations in migrant networks.
It also shows that visual representations can help us to dig deeper into
making sense of the complexities of urban migration-driven diversity. By
mapping relational diversity, readers can engage with the data—get closer
to it—and develop questions to ‘test’ their own assumptions about who
ought to be social with who on which aspect of superdiversity and what
types of patterns this might imply.
In Chap. 5 I then analyse the data represented by implementing a clus-
tering algorithm. This is done to disentangle the complexity made visually
accessible through the heatmap used in Chap. 4. Using a pattern detec-
tion approach that is capable of taking multidimensionality into account
facilitates thinking about—based on the very specific case study of Pacific
migrants living in London and Toronto—how we might change the
vocabulary with which we talk about post-migration socialities. What are
12 F. MEISSNER

Fig. 1.2 QR code to book website

the alternatives to identifying a network as ethnic or highly concentrated in

terms of other migrants? Chapter 5 thus provides a data-driven analysis of
what types of similarity patterns can be distinguished in the network data,
and how the different groupings and patterns allow for a different rhetoric
about individuals’ post-migration networks and relational diversity. Four
clusters of socialising patterns are identified which I call city-cohort, long-
term resident, superdiverse, and migrant-peer networks. The clusters are dis-
cussed in light of how they can be interpreted towards a more nuanced
discussion of individual post-migration networks and in an effort to move
towards thinking about those networks in terms of socialising with diversity
but about in a broader way than we might have done in the past. A brief
concluding chapter will draw the themes and issues identified in the book
together and comment on the implications of expanding strategies for
thinking about relational diversity through a superdiversity lens (Fig. 1.2).

NOTES
1. Ravi, 32, London, Interview: 20/04/2010—name changed.
2. 2011 Census Commissioned table CT0048 (ONS: http://data.london.
gov.uk/dataset/detailed-country-birth-2011-census-borough [accessed:
12/08/2015]).
3. To ensure that figures included in this book can be examined in detail, they
have been uploaded to the website accompanying this book at: www.socdiv.
mmg.mpg.de (use Fig. 1.2).
 INTRODUCTION—SOCIALISING WITH DIVERSITY 13

REFERENCES
Amin, Ash. 2002. Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity.
Environment and Planning A 34(6): 959–980.
Appadurai, Arjun. 2006. Fear of small numbers. An essay on the geography of anger.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Aspinall, Peter J. 2012. Answer formats in British census and survey ethnicity
questions: Does open response better capture ‘superdiversity’?”. Sociology
46(2): 354–364.
Bashi, Vilna Francine. 2007. Survival of the knitted. Immigrant social networks in
a stratified world. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bommes, Michael. 2011. Migrationsnetzwerke in der funktional differenzierten
Gesellschaft. In Netzwerke in der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft, ed.
Michael Bommes and Veronika Tacke, 241–260. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Breton, Raymond. 1964. Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and
the personal relations of immigrants. American Journal of Sociology 70(2):
193–205.
Brettell, Caroline. 1981. Is the ethnic community inevitable? A comparison of the
settlement patterns of Portuguese immigrants in Toronto and Paris. Journal of
Ethnic Studies 9(3): 1–17.
———. 2003. Is the ethnic community inevitable? A comparison of the settlement
patterns of Portuguese immigrants in Toronto and Paris. In Anthropology and
migration. Essays on transnationalism, ethnicity, and identity, ed. Caroline
Brettell, XXI. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. 239S.
Clark, K., and S. Drinkwater. 2002. Enclaves, neighbourhood effects and employ-
ment outcomes: Ethnic minorities in England and Wales. Journal of Population
Economics 15(1): 5–29.
Dobbernack, J. 2014. The politics of social cohesion in Germany, France, and the
United Kingdom. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Esser, Hartmut. 2001. Integration Und Ethnische Schichtung. Arbeitspapiere des
Mannheimer Zentrums für Europäische Sozialforschung 40: 1–77.
Fong, E., and E. Ooka. 2002. The social consequences of participating in the
ethnic economy. International Migration Review 36(1): 125–146.
Gamlen, Alan. 2010. International migration data and the study of super-diversity.
Göttingen: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Ganter, Stephan. 2003. Soziale Netzwerke und interethnische Distanz. Theoretische
und empirische Analysen zum Verhältnis von Deutschen und Ausländern.
Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of
Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.
14 F. MEISSNER

Hylland Eriksen, Thomas. 2007. Complexity in social and cultural integration:

Some analytical dimensions. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1055–1069.
Kim, Ann H., and Michael J. White. 2010. Panethnicity, ethnic diversity, and resi-
dential segregation. American Journal of Sociology 115(5): 1558–1596.
Magnusson, Warren. 2011. Politics of urbanism: Seeing like a city. New York:
Routledge.
Murdie, R., and S. Ghosh. 2010. Does spatial concentration always mean a lack of
integration? Exploring ethnic concentration and integration in Toronto.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(2): 293–311.
Myles, J., and F. Hou. 2004. Changing colours: Neighbourhood attainment and
residential segregation among Toronto’s visible minorities. Canadian Journal
of Sociology 29(1): 29–58.
Nathan, Max. 2011. The economics of super-diversity: Findings from British cit-
ies, 2001–2006. Spatial Economics Research Centre Discussion Papers 68.
Simmel, Georg. 1909. The problem of sociology. The American Journal of
Sociology 15(3): 289–320.
Simpson, Ludi. 2007. Ghettos of the mind: The empirical behaviour of indices of
segregation and diversity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A
(Statistics in Society) 170(2): 405–424.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2005. The concept of society is theoretically obsolete: For the
motion (1). In Key debates in anthropology, ed. Tim Ingold, 50–55. London:
Routledge.
Stringer, Martin D. 2014. Evidencing superdiversity in the census and beyond.
Religion (June):1–13.
Toren, Christina. 2005. The concept of society is theoretically obsolete: For the
motion (2). In Key debates in anthropology, ed. Tim Ingold, 60–63. London:
Routledge.
Vermeulen, Floris. 2007. How to tackle ethnic diversity at the local level: Examples
from policy practitioners in Amsterdam and Berlin. IMISCOE Policy Briefs
(Policy brief 4).
Vertovec, Steven. 2005. Opinion: Super-diversity revealed. BBC 0.
———. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies
30(6): 1024–1054.
———. 2012. ‘Diversity’ and the social imaginary. European Journal of Sociology/
Archives Européennes de Sociologie 53(03): 287–312.
Warman, C. 2007. Ethnic enclaves and immigrant earnings growth. Canadian
Journal of Economics 40(2): 401–422.
Wimmer, Andreas. 2004. Does ethnicity matter? Everyday group formation in
three Swiss immigrant neighbourhoods. Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(1):
1–36.
Yau, Nathan. 2011. Visualize this: The flowing data guide to design, visualization,
and statistics. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
 CHAPTER 2

Exploring Superdiversity and Relational

Diversity

Abstract A much needed critical examination of superdiversity is offered.

Meissner develops this by imploring what the notion adds to research. It
is important to be clear about how the notion is used. There is a need to
differentiate between superdiversity as a tool for delineating sets of vari-
ables, as a social context, but also as a malleable social science concept. By
emphasising simultaneity, emergent patterns, processes, and multidimen-
sionality as central to using superdiversity as a lens for research, the notion
is linked to debates about social complexities. This in the final section is
used to introduce the notion of relational diversity as a basic concept that
can help appreciate those complexities.

Keywords Relational diversity • Superdiversity • Complexity

This chapter traces and expands discussions in the superdiversity literature

emphasising its specific call to move away from comfortable (ethno-focal)
categories as the basis for describing migration-related diversity. Bringing
multiple aspects into the analysis and understanding their different and
shifting saliences are central components of engaging with the implica-
tions of international migration through a superdiversity lens (Meissner
and Vertovec 2014). This means that we need to develop and engage
with multidimensional conceptualisations of diversity. Doing so facilitates

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 15

F. Meissner, Socialising with Diversity,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-47439-1_2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The place became, from about the middle of the eighteenth
century, a favourite resort of London anglers and swimmers, and
many London merchants and persons of good position were among
the subscribers. An annual payment of one guinea entitled
subscribers to the use of the baths, and to the diversion of “angling
and skating at proper seasons.” Occasional visitors paid two shillings
each time of bathing.
THE PLEASURE BATH, PEERLESS POOL, CITY
ROAD.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION.
PLEASURE BATH
£. s. d.
Month 0 9 0
Two Months 0 16 0
Year 1 1 0
 Single Bathe 0 1 0
with Towels
and Box
Ditto without 0 0 0
COLD BATH
£. s. d.
Month 0 10 0
Two Months 0 17 0
Year 1 10 0
Single Bathe 0 1 0

THE PLEASURE BATH OF PEERLESS POOL,

The largest in England, is situated in the immediate
neighbourhood of the heart of the City, within Ten
minutes’ direct walk of the Bank and Exchange. (vide
plan.) Surrounded by trees and shrubberies, open to the
air, although entirely screened from observation, and
most ample in its dimensions—170 feet in length, by
108 in breadth—it offers to the Bather the very
advantages he would least expect to find at so short a
distance from the centre of the metropolis. Its depth,
which increases gradually from 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 8
inches, is such as to afford free scope to the Swimmer,
while it precludes all fear of accident to any, and the
temperature of the water rises to a height sufficient to
ensure all the comfort and luxury of Bathing, without the
risk of injury to health, from a too violent contrast with the
external air.
THE COLD BATH,
Thirty-Six feet by Eighteen, is the largest of its kind
in London, and both Baths are entirely supplied by
Springs, which are constantly overflowing.

The City Road is the line from all parts of the West
End to the City. Omnibuses pass both ways nearly every
minute throughout the day.
 1, Bath Buildings Entrance—2, Baldwyn Street
Entrance—3, Cold Bath—4, Pleasure Bath—5, Dressing
Boxes—6, Shrubberies.
BILL OF PEERLESS POOL. Circ. 1846.

About 1805 Mr. Joseph Watts (father of Thomas Watts, the well-
known Keeper of Printed Books at the British Museum) obtained a
lease of the place from St. Bartholomew’s Hospital at a rental of
£600 per annum, and eventually saw his way to a profit by building
on part of the ground. He drained the fish-pond which lay due east
and west, and built the present Baldwin Street on the site. The old-
fashioned house inhabited by Kemp, which stood in a garden and
orchard of apple and pear trees overlooking the west end of the fish-
pond, Watts pulled down, erecting Bath Buildings on the spot.[81]
The pleasure bath and the cold bath he, however, continued to open
to the public at a charge of one shilling, and Hone gives a pleasant
description of it as it was (still in Watts’s proprietorship) in 1826. “Its
size,” he says, “is the same as in Kemp’s time, and trees enough
remain to shade the visitor from the heat of the sun while on the
brink.” “On a summer evening it is amusing to survey the conduct of
the bathers; some boldly dive, others ‘timorous stand,’ and then
descend, step by step, ‘unwilling and slow’; choice swimmers attract
attention by divings and somersets, and the whole sheet of water
sometimes rings with merriment. Every fine Thursday and Saturday
afternoon in the summer, columns of blue-coat boys, more than
three score in each, headed by their respective beadles, arrive, and
some half strip themselves ere they reach their destination; the rapid
plunges they make into the Pool, and their hilarity in the bath, testify
their enjoyment of the tepid fluid.”
The Pool was still frequented in 1850,[82] but at a later time was
built over. Its name is kept locally in remembrance by Peerless
Street, the second main turning on the left of the City Road, just
beyond Old Street, in coming from the City. This street was formerly
called Peerless Row, and formed the northern boundary of the
ground laid out by Kemp.[83]
 [Maitland’s Hist. of London, i. p. 84, ff.; Dodsley’s London,
“Peerless Pool”; Noorthouck’s London, p. 756, ff.; Trusler’s London
Adviser (1786), p. 124; Hone’s Every Day Book, i. p. 970, ff.;
Pennant’s London, p. 268; Wheatley’s London P. and P. iii. s.v.;
newspaper cuttings, &c., W. Coll.]

VIEWS.
1. Two woodcuts (pleasure bath and fish-pond) from drawings, circ.
1826, by John Cleghorn in Hone’s Every Day Book (cited above).
2. View of Peerless Pool Bath and Gardens in 1848; coloured
drawing by Read. Crace, Cat., p. 608, No. 9.
3. The Pleasure Bath, Peerless Pool. An advertisement bill with
woodcut of the bath, surrounded by trees and shrubberies, and a plan
of the vicinity (1846?), W. Coll.; cp. Crace, Cat., p. 608, No. 8.
 THE SHEPHERD AND SHEPHERDESS, CITY ROAD

The Shepherd and Shepherdess ale-house stood on or near the

site afterwards occupied by the well-known Eagle Tavern in the City
Road and Shepherdess Walk.
It was built at some time before 1745, and its gardens were
frequented in the last century by visitors, who regaled themselves
with cream, cakes and furmity. Invalids sometimes stayed at the
Shepherd and Shepherdess[84] to benefit by the pure air of the
neighbourhood. The City Road (opened in 1761) was cut through the
meadow-grounds that surrounded the inn. The place gradually lost
its rural isolation, but it is found enumerated among the tea-gardens
resorted to by Londoners of the “middling classes” in the first quarter
of the nineteenth century.
The Shepherd and Shepherdess appears to have been pulled
down about 1825, at which time Thomas Rouse built on or near its
site the Eagle Tavern (rebuilt 1838) which formed the nucleus of the
famous Eagle establishment with its Grecian saloon and theatre, its
gardens and dancing pavilion. The tavern, grounds and theatre were
purchased by “General” Booth in 1882, and have since been
occupied by the Salvation Army.[85]
[Larwood and Hotten, Signboards, 352, 353; Picture of London,
1802 and 1823; Walford, ii. 227, 274.]
 THE SPRING GARDEN, STEPNEY

This Spring Garden was situated a little distance to the north of

the Mile End Road and its eastern side abutted on what is now
Globe Road.
It was in existence at least as early as 1702, and at that period
seems to have been sometimes known as the Jews’ Spring Garden,
[86] probably because it was owned or frequented by some of the
wealthy Jews who at that time and long afterwards resided in
Goodman’s Fields and the neighbourhood. There was a tavern
attached to the gardens, the keeper of which, in 1743, was a Mr.
Dove Rayner,[87] described as a man of “agreeable mirth and good
humour.”
The garden continued to exist till 1764 when we hear of it as a
Sunday evening resort of holiday-makers,[88] but it does not appear
to be mentioned at a later date.
In Horwood’s Plan (G) of 1799 the garden (or its site), together
with a few buildings, is marked as Spring Garden Court. Later on, in
the present century, the ground was known as Spring Grove.
Nicholas Street and Willow Street, between Globe Road and St.
Peter’s Road on the west, now appear to occupy part of the site.
About the middle of the last century Stepney is described as[89] a
village consisting principally of houses of entertainment to which vast
crowds of people of both sexes resorted on Sundays and at Easter
and Whitsuntide, to eat Stepney buns and drink ale and cyder.
One of these inns was known as The Treat; and there is a print[90]
of it, dated 1760, inscribed with the couplet:—
At Stepney now with cakes and ale,
Our tars their mistresses regale.
 II

MARYLEBONE GROUP
 MARYLEBONE GARDENS

§ 1. Origin of Marylebone Gardens.

The principal entrance[91] to these well-known gardens was
through The Rose (or Rose of Normandy), a tavern situated on the
east side of the High Street, Marylebone, opposite (old) Marylebone
Church. The gardens extended as far east as the present Harley
Street; and Beaumont Street, part of Devonshire Street, part of
Devonshire Place, and Upper Wimpole Street now occupy their site.
When enlarged (in 1753) to their fullest extent they comprised about
eight acres, and were bounded on the south by Weymouth Street,
formerly called Bowling Green Lane or Bowling Street.
As a place of amusement of the Vauxhall type, the gardens date,
practically, from 1738, but the Marylebone garden and bowling-green
came into existence at a much earlier period.
The gardens were originally those belonging to the old
Marylebone Manor House,[92] and were detached from it in 1650.
There were several bowling-greens in the immediate vicinity, the
principal of which was a green appurtenant to the Rose, and situated
in the gardens behind this tavern. In 1659 the gardens of the Rose,
the nucleus of the later Marylebone Gardens, consisted of gravel
walks, a circular walk, and the bowling-green which formed the
central square. The walks at that time were “double-set with quick-
set hedges, full grown and indented like townwalls.” On the outside
of the whole was a brick wall, with fruit trees.
Pepys records a visit in 1668 (7 May):—“Then we abroad to
Marrowbone, and there walked in the garden: the first time I ever
was there, and a pretty place it is.”
In 1691 the place was known as Long’s Bowling Green at the
Rose, and for several years (circ. 1679–1736) persons of quality
might be seen bowling there during the summer time:—
At the Groom Porter’s batter’d bullies play;
Some Dukes at Marybone bowl time away.[93]
 Less innocent amusement was afforded by the tavern, which, at
the end of the seventeenth and in the early part of the eighteenth
century, was notorious as a gaming-house. Sheffield, Duke of
Buckingham (d. 1712) was wont at the end of the season to give a
dinner at the Rose to its chief frequenters, proposing as the toast,
“May as many of us as remain unhanged next spring meet here
again.” “There will be deep play to-night (says Macheath in the
Beggar’s Opera), and consequently money may be pick’d up on the
road. Meet me there, and I’ll give you the hint who is worth setting.”
Some special attractions were occasionally offered to the quality
who frequented the Bowling Green; thus, in 1718 there were
illuminations there, and a consort of musick to celebrate the King’s
birthday. In 1736 we hear of scaffolding, 135 feet high, that was
erected in the gardens for the Flying Man who was to fly down it by a
rope with a wheelbarrow before him.

§ 2. Marylebone Gardens under Gough and Trusler. 1738–1763.

Daniel Gough, who was proprietor of the Rose and its gardens in
1737, first made a regular charge for admission,[94] and in the
summer of 1738 (July 12) advertised and opened “Marybone[95]
Gardens” as a place of evening entertainment. He selected a band
from the Opera and the Theatres to play, from six to ten, eighteen of
the best concertos, overtures and airs; erected a substantial garden-
orchestra, in which was placed (1740) an organ by Bridge; and built
(1739–1740) the House or Great Room for balls and suppers. Gough
was succeeded as manager (in 1751?) by John Trusler,[96] who
being by profession a cook paid attention to the commissariat of the
Gardens. The rich seed and plum cakes, and the almond cheese-
cakes made by his daughter, Miss Trusler, became a spécialité of the
place. Sir John Fielding, the magistrate, was of opinion that
Londoners should not want Mrs. Cornelys’s entertainments in Soho,
when they had Ranelagh with its music and fireworks and Marybone
Gardens with their music, wine and plum-cakes.
During this period (1738–1763) Marybone Gardens were opened
in the morning for public breakfasting in the Great Room, and for a
concert, beginning at twelve, to which the admission was two
shillings, or one shilling. The admission for the evening
entertainment was the same, but was raised on exceptional nights to
three shillings.
In August 1738, there were introduced “two Grand or Double
Bassoons, made by Mr. Stanesby, junior, the greatness of whose
sound surpass that of any other bass instrument whatsoever.” In
1741 a grand martial composition was performed by Mr. Lampe in
honour of Admiral Vernon. In 1744 Knerler, the violinist, was the
principal executant; and Mr. Ferrand performed on “the Pariton, an
instrument never played on in publick before.”
In 1747 Miss Falkner made her appearance and remained the
principal female singer[97] till about 1752.
 Wm. Defesch.
Mary Ann Falkner (or Faulkner),[98] was the niece of George
Faulkner, the Dublin printer, and was a vocalist of celebrity in her
day, though she never aspired beyond such songs as “Amoret and
Phillis,” “The Happy Couple,” “Fair Bellinda,” “Delia,” and “The
Faithful Lover.” She had many admirers, among whom were the Earl
of Halifax (the second Earl), Lord Vane, and Sir George Saville; but
she behaved circumspectly, and bestowed her hand upon a young
man named Donaldson, the son of a linendraper. Unfortunately, her
husband, who had been brought up in what Dr. Trusler calls “the line
of a gentleman,” was extravagant and idle, and consented (about
1753) to a base arrangement by which his wife was taken under the
protection of Lord Halifax.
The Earl built a house for Mrs. Donaldson at Hampton Court
Green, where she seems to have lived quietly. At a later time when
Halifax was contemplating marriage with the wealthy daughter of
General Drury, she surprised him one evening in the walks at
Vauxhall Gardens, and so exerted her influence that the Earl not only
left his Vauxhall friends without an apology, but broke off his
engagement with Miss Drury.[99]
Other vocalists of this period were Thomas Lowe (from 1750); Mr.
Baker (1750); Master Michael Arne (1751); Madame Ramelio (1752–
1753); Mrs. Chambers (1753); Champness (1757); Kear (1757);
Thomas Glanville (1757); and Reinhold (from 1757). Defesch, the
well-known musician, was engaged as first violin in 1748.
In 1758 “La Serva Padrona, or the Servant Mistress,”[100] the first
Burletta ever given in the gardens, was performed and was often
afterwards repeated. It was an adaptation of Pergolesi’s composition
by the elder Storace, and by Dr. Trusler, the proprietor’s son. The
younger Trusler subsequently became a clergyman and finally a
bookseller. He distinguished himself by selling to his clerical brethren
original sermons printed in script characters, and made in this way,
as he told his Bishop, an income of £150 a year.
During this period of the Gardens’ history the evening
entertainments were usually confined to concerts, though balls were
given from time to time in the Great Room. Fireworks were not often
displayed, but on 26 September, 1751, after a masquerade, they
were introduced with a kind of apology:—“the playing-off the
fireworks (which will begin at eleven o’clock) will not incommode the
ladies.” “A large collection” of fireworks was announced for display
on the June evenings of 1753.
A view of Marybone Gardens in 1755 shows smartly-dressed
people promenading in the Grand Walk, with the Orchestra and the
Great Room on either hand. At this period families of good position
had country houses in the High Street, Marylebone, and they
probably availed themselves of the subscription tickets for the balls
and concerts in the Gardens. Old Dr. John Fountayne, for instance,
would stroll in from the Manor House School with his friend Mr.
Handel. On one occasion the great composer begged for
Fountayne’s opinion on a new composition that the band was
performing. They sat down together, and after a time the clergyman
proposed that they should move. “It is not worth listening to—it’s very
poor stuff.” “You are right, Mr. Fountayne,” said Handel, “it is very
poor stuff. I thought so myself when I had finished it.”[101]

MARYBONE GARDENS, 1755–1761.

The Gardens appear to have been generally conducted in a
respectable way, though the Duke of Cumberland, if Dr. Trusler[102]
has not maligned him, used to behave in a scandalous manner when
he visited the place. Probably, gentlemen did not always accede to
the proprietor’s humble request that they should not “smoak on the
walks”; and a scene occasionally occurred. One Saturday night in
August 1751, an angry gentleman drew upon another who was
unarmed, but had his sword struck out of his hand by a “nobleman”
standing by, so that the disputants were reduced (we are told) to the
use of cane and fist. But on the whole, Marybone Gardens was a
decent and social place of amusement, and little parties were to be
seen chatting and laughing in its latticed alcoves. In May 1753 when
the Gardens had been extended and improved, the place could
boast (according to a contemporary account) of the largest and
politest assembly ever seen there.
A guard of soldiers and peace-officers conducted the company
(circ. 1741) to and from the Gardens, and at eleven and twelve
o’clock a special guard set off to take people along the fields as far
as the Foundling Hospital. (circ. 1743). The neighbourhood of the
Gardens was, in fact, by no means safe. On a June night of 1751
when the entertainment was in full swing, some thieves entered the
house of Mr. William Coombs, a wine merchant residing at the
Gardens, and carried off his plate and china. About three weeks later
a gentleman who was in the fields at the back of the Gardens,
listening to the strains of the band, had a pistol pointed at him by a
man who demanded his money and his watch. On June 30, 1752, a
servant going to the Gardens was attacked in the fields and robbed
by two footpads.[103] At a later date (1764) the proprietor felt it
necessary to offer “a premium of ten guineas” for the apprehension
of any highwayman or footpad found on the road to the Gardens,
and a horse-patrol to and from the City was provided at that time. It
is said that Dick Turpin once publicly kissed in the Gardens a beauty
of the time related to Dr. Fountayne. The lady expostulated, but
Turpin exclaimed “Be not alarmed, Madam, you can now boast that
you have been kissed by Dick Turpin. Good morning!”

§3. The Gardens under Thomas Lowe. 1763–1768.

In 1763 the Gardens and adjoining premises were taken at a
yearly rent of £170[104] by Thomas (“Tommy”) Lowe, the favourite
tenor of Vauxhall Gardens, who had already appeared at Marybone
Gardens in 1750. He engaged, among other singers, Mrs. Vincent,
Mrs. Lampe, and the beautiful Nan Catley, then only eighteen. Lowe
opened in May (1763) with a “Musical address to the Town,” in which
the singers (Lowe, Miss Catley and Miss Smith) apologised for the
absence of some of the attractions of Ranelagh and Vauxhall:—
Yet Nature some blessings has scatter’d around;
And means to improve may hereafter be found.

The entertainments under Lowe’s management consisted

principally of concerts in which he himself took a prominent part.[105]
The Gardens were opened at 5 p.m.: the concert began at 6.30, and
the admission was one shilling. In 1765 the concerts included songs
from Dr. Boyce’s “Solomon,” and Mrs. Vincent sang “Let the merry
bells go round” by Handel, accompanied by a new instrument called
the Tintinnabula. There was a new Ode (August 31), called “The
Soldier,” “wrote and set to music by a person of distinction.” In 1767
(August 28), Catches and Glees were performed.
 THOMAS LOWE.
A wet season, combined, as would appear, with insufficient
enterprise, involved the manager in difficulties, and by a Deed of 15
January, 1768, he assigned to his creditors all the receipts and
profits arising from the Gardens. He retired in 1769, and was glad to
accept an engagement at Finch’s Grotto, though at one period he
had been making, it is said, £1,000 a year. He died 2 March, 1783.
Dibdin says that Lowe’s voice was more mellow and even than that
of Beard, but that “Lowe lost himself beyond the namby-pamby of
Vauxhall”; while “Beard was at home everywhere.”

§4. Later History of the Gardens. 1768–1778.

During 1768,[106] the Gardens were carried on by Lowe’s
creditors. The receipts for the season from season-tickets (£1 11s.
6d. each) and money at the doors and bars, were £2,085 1s. 7½d.,
but the result was a deficit of £263 10s. 3d., though the salaries do
not appear to have been excessive. Miss Davis for six nights got
three guineas; Mr. Phillips three guineas; Master Brown four
guineas; Werner, harpist for six nights, two guineas. The Band cost
£27 13s. a week.
Dr. Samuel Arnold, the musician, became proprietor of the
Gardens in 1769; and though he eventually retired (in 1773?) a loser,
the Gardens probably offered more attractions under his
management than at any other period. The weather being wet and
cold, the opening of the season of 1769 was postponed till after the
middle of May. The proprietor sedulously advertised the “very
effectual drains” that had been made in the Gardens, “so that they
become very dry and pleasant in a short time after heavy rains.” A
few light showers, moreover, would not hinder the performances,
and when dancing took place there was a covered platform in the
Garden.
The seasons of 1769[107] and 1770 were sufficiently gay. The
ordinary admission at this time, and until the final closing of the
gardens was one shilling, raised to half-a-crown, three shillings or
three shillings and sixpence on the best nights, when the performers
had their benefits. On such nights there were fireworks by Rossi and
Clanfield; the transparent Temple of Apollo was illuminated, and a
ball concluded the entertainment. In 1769 nearly the whole staff took
a benefit, in their turn. Mrs. Forbes, Mr. Hook, Mr. Pinto, Piquenit the
treasurer, the doorkeepers, and finally the waiters. Thomas Pinto
was engaged as leader, James Hook, father of Theodore Hook, as
organist (1769–1772), Mrs. Forbes and Miss Brent (afterwards Mrs.
Pinto) as singers. Hook’s “Love and Innocence,” a pastoral serenata,
was performed for the first time on 10 August (1769), and there were
Odes by Christopher Smart, set to music by Arnold, and an “Ode to
the Haymakers,” by Dr. Arne.

Lawrenson pinxt. Published July 1807, by Matthews & Evans sculp.

Leigh.
In 1770[108] the leader was F. H. Barthelemon, one of the best
known violinists of his time, and distinguished for his firmness of
hand, and purity of tone. His burletta, “The Noble Pedlar,” was
successfully produced this year. “The Magic Girdle,” and “The
Madman,” were also produced; and the “Serva Padrona,” was
revived. On 4 September the Fourth Concerto of Corelli, with the
additional parts for trumpets, French horns and kettledrums, was
performed. In 1771[109] “The Magnet” was performed (first time, 27
June) and Miss Catley, now principal singer at Covent Garden, made
her re-appearance.
From 1772 to 1774 the productions of Torré[110] the fireworker
made the gardens very popular. Residents in the neighbourhood
thought the fireworks a nuisance, and attacked Torré in the
newspapers. Mrs. Fountayne produced a rocket-case found in her
own garden, and in 1772 Arnold, as proprietor, was summoned at
Bow Street. He pleaded, however, a license from the Board of
Ordnance, and the fires of Torré continued to burn bright. Torré’s
masterpiece, often repeated at the Gardens, was called the Forge of
Vulcan. After the fireworks were over, a curtain rose, and discovered
Vulcan and the “Cyclops” at the forge behind Mount Etna. The fire
blazed, and Venus entered with Cupid, and begged them to make
arrows for her son. On their assenting, the mountain appeared in
eruption, and a stream of lava poured down its sides.
Numerous singers were engaged for 1772,[111] Charles Bannister,
Reinhold, Mrs. Calvert and others, and the musical entertainments
were “The Divorce,” by Hook; “The Coquet,” by Storace; “The
Magnet,” and “La Serva Padrona.” Bannister gave his clever musical
imitations of well-known singers and of “the Italian, French and
German manner of singing.” At Hook’s Annual Festival on 28 August
(1772) “Il Dilettanti” (by Hook) was given for the first time with
choruses by “the young gentlemen from St. Paul’s Choir.” The
pyrotechnic entertainments included a representation of Cox’s
Museum, and a magnificent temple consisting of “upwards of 10,000
cases of different fires all ... lighted at the same time.” During the
fireworks, martial music was performed under Hook’s direction in the
Temple of Apollo.[112]
In 1773[113] the Gardens were open for three evenings in the
week. Handel’s “Acis and Galatea” was performed (27 May), and
Barthelemon’s “The Wedding Day,” in which “Thyrsis, a gay young
swain, is beloved by Daphne, an antiquated damsel.” Arne
conducted his catches and glees at a concert on 15 September.[114]
In 1774[115] there was music every week-day evening. Several
novelties were introduced, but the fortunes of the Gardens appear to
have been waning. Dr. Arnold’s “Don Quixote” was performed for the
first time on 30 June. The first Fête Champêtre took place in July, but
the newspapers attacked the management for charging five shillings
for an entertainment which consisted of a few tawdry festoons and
extra lamps. Some of the visitors, we are told, “injured the stage and
broke its brittle wares.” One cannot help suspecting that Dr. Johnson
was at the bottom of this outrage: at any rate during a visit of his to
the Gardens at some time between 1772–1774 a similar incident
occurred.
Johnson, who had heard of the fame of Torré’s fireworks, went to
the Gardens one evening, accompanied by his friend George
Steevens. It was showery, and notice was given to the few visitors
present, that the fireworks were water-soaked and could not be
displayed. “This” (said Johnson) “is a mere excuse to save their
crackers for a more profitable company. Let us both hold up our
sticks and threaten to break those coloured lamps, ... and we shall
soon have our wishes gratified. The core of the fireworks cannot be
injured: let the different pieces be touched in their respective centres,
and they will do their offices as well as ever.” Some young men
standing by indulged in the violence suggested, but failed to ignite
the fireworks. “The author of The Rambler,” as Mr. Steevens
judiciously observes, “may be considered, on this occasion as the
ringleader of a successful riot, though not as a skilful pyrotechnist.” A
second Fête Champêtre succeeded better, and the company did not
leave till six in the morning.
During this year (1774), and in 1775 and 1776 the Gardens were
open on Sunday, after five p.m., for a promenade (without music);
and sixpence, returned in tea, coffee, and Ranelagh rolls, was
charged for admission. As far back as 1760 the Gardens had been
opened on Sunday, and “genteel persons were admitted to walk
gratis,” and to drink tea there. But this tea-drinking had been
prohibited in 1764. The “Sunday Rambler,” who visited Marybone
Gardens about this time, speaks of them with profound contempt as
a place of tea-table recreation. Nobody was there, the tablecloths
were dirty, and the rubbish for Signor Torré’s fireworks was left lying
about. The Gardens, he adds, were “nothing more than two or three
gravel roads, and a few shapeless trees.”
In the same year (1774) the managers of the Gardens advertised
and opened (6 June) the Marybone Spa. In the winter of 1773 the
City Surveyor, while searching for the City Wells in Marybone, had
discovered in the Gardens a mineral spring. The public were now
admitted to drink this water from six o’clock in the morning. It was
suggested that the waters might be useful for nervous and scorbutic
disorders, but, in any case, “they strengthen the stomach, and
promote a good appetite and a good digestion.”
But the end of Marybone Gardens, as an open-air resort, was
rapidly approaching. In 1775 no concerts appear to have been
advertised, though there were several displays of fireworks by Caillot
in June, July, and August. Already in 1774, one of those profaners of
the “cheerful uses” of the playhouse and the public garden—a
lecturer and reciter—had appeared in the person of Dr. Kenrick (on
Shakespeare). The management had now (June 1775) to rely for the
evening’s entertainment on “The Modern Magic Lantern,” consisting
of whimsical sketches of character, by R. Baddeley the comedian,
and on a “Lecture upon mimicry,” by George Saville Carey. In July, a
conjurer was introduced.
In 1776 there was a flicker of the old gaiety. The Forge of Vulcan
was revived in May, and there were fireworks by Caillot. A
representation of the Boulevards of Paris was prettily contrived, the
boxes fronting the ball-room being converted into the shops of
Newfangle, the milliner; Trinket, the toyman; and Crotchet, the
music-seller.[116]
The Gardens closed on 23 September, 1776, and were never
afterwards regularly opened. Henry Angelo (Reminiscences),
referring to the Marybone Gardens in their later days, says they were
“adapted to the gentry rather than the haut ton.” Whatever this
distinction may be worth, it is clear from the comparative paucity of
the contemporary notices that the Marybone Gardens, though a well-
known resort, at no period attained the vogue of Ranelagh, or the
universal popularity of Vauxhall.
About 1778 the site of the Gardens was let to the builders, and
the formation of streets (see § 1) begun. J. T. Smith[117] states that
the orchestra, before which he had often stood when a boy, was
erected on the space occupied by the house in Devonshire Place,
numbered (in 1828) “17.” According to Malcolm, a few of the old
trees of the Gardens were still standing in 1810 at the north end of
Harley Street.
The old Rose of Normandy (with a skittle alley at the back)
existed, little altered, till 1848–1850, when a new tavern was built on
its site. The tavern (still bearing the old name) was subsequently
taken by Sam Collins (Samuel Vagg), the popular Irish vocalist, who
converted its concert-room into a regular music hall, The
Marylebone, which he carried on till 1861, when he parted with his
interest to Mr. W. Botting. The present Marylebone Music Hall (with
the public bar attached to it) fronts the High Street, and standing on
the site of the old Rose of Normandy, from which the Marybone
Gardens were entered, may claim, in a measure, to be evolved from
that once famous pleasure resort.[118]
[Sainthill’s Memoirs, 1659 [Gent. Mag. vol. 83; p. 524);
advertisements, songs, &c., relating to Marybone Gardens (1763–
1775), Brit. Mus. (840, m. 29); Newspaper advertisements, songs,
&c., in W. Coll. Newspaper cuttings, &c., relating to London Public
Gardens in the Guildhall Library, London; Smith’s Book for a Rainy
Day, p. 40, ff.; Thomas Smith’s Marylebone; Blanchard, in Era
Almanack, 1869, p. 32, ff.; Grove’s Dict. of Music (1880), art.
“Marylebone Gardens,” by W. H. Husk. Angelo’s Reminiscences, ii. p.
3; Timbs’s Romance of London; Walford, iv. 431, ff.; Thomas Harris’s
Historical and Descriptive Sketch of Marylebone Gardens, London,
1887.]

VIEWS.
 1. A view of Marybone Gardens and orchestra, J. Donnowell del.
1755; published by J. Tinney. Crace, Cat. p. 566, No. 74.
2. Modifications of 1, published by R. Sayer, 1755, and by Bowles
and Carver. Crace, Cat. p. 566, Nos. 75, 76. Also 1761, published by
J. Ryall [W. Coll.].
3. Views of Rose of Normandy. Crace, Cat. p. 566, Nos. 79–81; p.
567, No. 82.
 THE QUEEN’S HEAD AND ARTICHOKE

In the neighbourhood of the Marylebone Gardens were a few

much humbler places of entertainment, standing in what in the last
century was a rural district; the Queen’s Head and Artichoke, the
Jew’s Harp house and, farther west, the Yorkshire Stingo.
The Queen’s Head and Artichoke was in Marylebone Park, nearly
opposite Portland Road, and about five hundred yards from the north
side of the New Road (Marylebone Road). It was a small and
picturesque old inn, standing in a meadow to which a footpath led,
and displaying a portrait of Queen Elizabeth as its sign. Tradition
attributed the building of the house to a gardener of the Queen, and
the curious combination of the sign was believed to have something
to do with this. The inn is marked in Rocque’s map of 1745, and it
probably then possessed, as it did at the beginning of the present
century, a ground for skittles and “bumble-puppy,” and shady
bowers, in which cream, tea and cakes were served.
It was pulled down about 1811, and the Colosseum afterwards
occupied part of the site. A new tavern was then built near the site of
the old inn, and this is probably identical with the public-house called
the Queen’s Head and Artichoke, which is now No. 30 Albany Street,
east side.
[Gent. Mag. 1819, pt. 2, p. 401; Larwood and Hotten, Hist. of
Signboards, pp. 311, 312; Walford, v. p. 255; Smith, Book for a
Rainy Day; Wheatley, London P. and P., s.v. “Jew’s Harp,” and
“Albany Street”; Hone’s Year Book, p. 318; Clinch’s Marylebone, pp.
40 and 45.]

VIEWS.
1. A water-colour drawing by Findlay, 1796. Crace, Cat. p. 569, No.
104; cp. an engraving of the inn in Walford, v. p. 258, and a small
sketch in Clinch’s Marylebone, p. 45 (dated 1796).
2. An engraving published in Gent. Mag. 1819, pt. 2, p. 401;
reproduced in Clinch’s Marylebone, facing p. 40.
 THE JEW’S HARP HOUSE AND TEA GARDENS

The Jew’s Harp House was in Marylebone Park, a little to the

north-west of the Queen’s Head and Artichoke, from which it was
separated by fields. It is marked in Rocque’s map of 1745, and while
still a quiet inn, is said to have been a favourite haunt of Arthur
Onslow, the famous Speaker (b. 1691, d. 1768), who used to take
his pipe and glass in the chimney corner. One day when driving to
the House of Commons in his coach, he was recognised by the
landlord, and on his next visit to the inn was welcomed by the family
as befitted Mr. Speaker. His incognito was thus betrayed, and he
returned no more.
By 1772 it had become a recognised place of amusement
provided with “bowery tea-gardens,” skittle-grounds,[119] a trap-ball
ground and a tennis court. A large upper room, reached by a
staircase from the outside, was used as a dining-room for large
parties and occasionally for evening dances. Facing the south of the
premises was a semi-circular enclosure with boxes for ale and tea
drinking, guarded by painted deal-board soldiers.
The place was in existence till about 1812, when it was removed
for the formation of Regent’s Park. It stood between the present
Broad Walk of the Park, and the north-east corner of the Botanic
Gardens.
 JEW’S HARP HOUSE, 1794.
[J. T. Smith’s Book for a Rainy Day, pp. 17, 18 (ed. 1833); Hone’s
Year Book, p. 318; Larwood and Hotten, Signboards, pp. 340, 341,
where J. T. Smith’s description of the Jew’s Harp, Marylebone, is
wrongly referred to the Jew’s Harp, Islington; Timbs’s Club Life (1866),
ii. p. 236; Chambers’s Book of Days, ii. p. 74; Wheatley’s London, s.v.
“Jew’s Harp”; Walford, v. p. 255; Clinch’s Marylebone and St. Pancras,
p. 48; Picture of London, 1802, p. 370.]

VIEWS.
The Jew’s Harp public-house in Marylebone Park. A water-colour
drawing by Bigot, 1794. Crace, Cat. p. 569, No. 106; cp. a sketch in
Clinch’s Marylebone, p. 48.
 THE YORKSHIRE STINGO

The Yorkshire Stingo, a public-house on the south side of the

Marylebone Road, nearly opposite Chapel Street and the entrance to
Lisson Grove, is the modern representative of a rural inn of the same
name that was in existence at least as early as 1733.
From 1770 (or earlier) extensive tea gardens and a bowling green
were attached to the place.[120]
During the first forty years of the present century the gardens
were much frequented by the middle classes, especially on
Sundays, when admittance was by a six-penny ticket including
refreshments. For several years, from about 1790, a fair was held on
the first of May at or near the Yorkshire Stingo, and the May-dance
with Jack-in-the-Green took place.[121] This fair was suppressed as a
nuisance in the early part of the present century.
In 1836 and for a few years following, the Yorkshire Stingo had its
Apollo, or Royal Apollo, Saloon, in which concerts, vaudevilles and
comic burlettas were given every evening.[122] On gala nights,
balloon ascents, fireworks and other entertainments took place in the
grounds. The admission was one shilling.
The tea-gardens and bowling green were closed about 1848, and
the present County Court and the Marylebone Baths and Wash-
Houses,[123] nearly adjoining the present Yorkshire Stingo on the
east were built on their site.
[Thomas Smith’s Marylebone, p. 185; Walford, iv. 410; v. 256;
Larwood and Hotten, Signboards, p. 384; Picture of London, 1802 and
1829; Wheatley’s London P. and P. “Yorkshire Stingo.”]

VIEWS.
1. “The Yorkshire Stingo in 1770,” a small sketch in Clinch’s
Marylebone, p. 46, showing the tavern and the entrance to the tea-
gardens.
2. View of the new County Court and the Baths and the Wash-
Houses, built upon the ground of the late tea-gardens, &c., of the
Yorkshire Stingo Tavern. A woodcut, 1849. Crace, Cat. p. 567, No. 89.
 BAYSWATER TEA GARDENS

The Bayswater Tea Gardens, situated in a region once noted for

its springs and salubrious air, were originally the Physic Garden of
“Sir” John Hill, botanist, playwright, and quack doctor:—
“His farces are physic, his physic a farce is,”

and in this garden he grew the plants for his wonderful Water
Dock Essence and Balm of Honey.
Hill died in 1775, and his garden was (some years before 1795)
turned into a place of amusement, known as the Bayswater Tea
Gardens, and much frequented by the denizens of Oxford Street and
neighbourhood.[124] Views of 1796 show the boxes and arbours, and
a family party, more plebeian than that in George Morland’s “Tea
Garden,” in full enjoyment of their tea. Waiters are bustling about
with huge kettles crying “’Ware kettle, scaldings!”
The Bayswater Tea Gardens are mentioned in the Picture of
London, 1823–1829, among those frequented by Londoners of the
middle classes. From about 1836 they appear to have been called
the Flora Tea Gardens, Bayswater.