Creating Inclusive Communities in Challenging Times

On Monday, we were invited by the Dialogue Society to take part in a discussion on belonging, power, and dialogue in a changing society.

The conversation centred on Birmingham and the growing gap between the people who live in the city and the structures that shape their lives.

Here's what we said, in four points:

• How do how younger, more recent migrants in Birmingham negotiate and express their identities?

Second-generation immigrant young people in Birmingham are growing up with complex, layered identities shaped by local life, global culture, faith, friendship networks, education, and digital spaces. However, while the citizenship of Birmingham has changed, the fabric of the city — its institutions, systems, and decision-making cultures — has not changed nearly as much.

Many institutions still rely on rigid and racialised ways of viewing identity:

• fixed categories

• narrow ideas of representation

• assumptions about who speaks for whom

These approaches no longer reflect lived experience. More importantly, they limit participation and prevent institutions from moving with the times. The challenge now is not simply about representation — it is about whether Birmingham’s institutions can recognise people as Birmingham citizens, with identities that are fluid, fused, and evolving.

• How can structured community dialogue help transform intergenerational tensions into opportunities for connection?

If we are serious about addressing these tensions, we need to rethink what we mean by dialogue. Much current practice is still shaped by limited assumptions:

• we listen in order to agree

• we speak to defend our positions

• we avoid discomfort and polarisation

This falls short of deep democracy. Deep democratic dialogue recognises that:

• conflict is inevitable

• difference does not need to be resolved to be respected

• polarising views must be acknowledged, not excluded

It requires the ability to recognise and hold difference — to stay in conversation without rushing to consensus or retreating into silence. This is difficult work, but it is essential if dialogue is to strengthen, rather than bypass, democracy.

• What platforms or dialogue mechanisms currently exist in Birmingham to help residents connect, discuss change, tradition, migration, values, and community roles—and how effective are they?

Birmingham has many dialogue mechanisms, but they haven't all evolved in recent years to match the changing demographics of the city, technological changes, and changes in our thinking about cohesion. Common limitations include:

• polarisation by age, interest, or affiliation

• repetition of the same voices (I say this as someone constantly asked to speak at public events!)

• dialogue spaces organised around identity silos

• short-term initiatives without continuity

As a result, there are few spaces that integrate across generations, cut across ethnicity and interest, or allow disagreement without fragmentation. What do we need more of?

• designing intergenerational engagement as standard

• using place-based rather than identity-based entry points

• training facilitators to hold tension rather than resolve it

• linking dialogue to real influence and decision-making

Dialogue must be treated as a civic practice, not a side project.

• What shared values can serve as a foundation for trust across communities, and what barriers continue to hinder open and productive conversation?

We often assume that shared values lead to a shared vision for the city. In reality, shared values do not automatically produce shared futures. In a city facing diminishing resources, one of the most powerful values shaping behaviour is self-interest — the focus on me and mine. This cuts across communities, generations, and identities.

Values such as safety, economic security, power and influence, and opportunities for future generations are widely shared — but they are unequally accessible. As a result, people experience Birmingham very differently depending on:

• economic position

• access to power and influence

• proximity to decision-making

These conditions create a deep sense that decisions are already made elsewhere. Without addressing these material and power inequalities, dialogue risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

The real question, then, is not whether Birmingham shares values — but whose values shape the city, and whose futures are being secured.