Social Cohesion
What & Why
We understand social cohesion as
“the ongoing process of developing a sense of belonging, well-being, and voluntary social participation of the members of society, while simultaneously
Developing communities that honor and celebrate a multiplicity of backgrounds, values and perspectives, and
Safeguarding equal rights and opportunities in society.”
Social cohesion is a compass framework for thriving on individual, community and institutional levels.
This conceptualization, based on Fonseca, Lukosch and Brazier’s efforts, bridges various prevailing understandings of Social Cohesion, for example from the Council of Europe and Canadian Government to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
As vital as each of the model’s elements is, on its own each may backfire. For example, social psychology studies demonstrate that belonging without diversity can lead to echo chambers, amplifying existing insular opinions with less focus on facts. This corresponds to less innovation and out-the-box thinking . It can also be accompanied by othering and intergroup conflict. Likewise, diversity — however granular — without belonging often exacerbates ‘othering’ and polarization.
Social Cohesion is therefore an ecosystemic vision of thriving.
What is Social Cohesion?
For What Reasons
Does Social Cohesion Matter?
Aspects of social cohesion, especially belonging in conjunction with honoring a multiplicity of backgrounds and perspectives, are linked with important elements of individual health and wellbeing (e.g. strengthened immunity, greater life expectancy, reduced cognitive decline), workplace success (e.g. increased creativity, job performance and retention rates), local communities (e.g. greater trust in fellow neighbors, increased civic engagement, fewer feelings of marginalization) and national politics (e.g. greater support of democracy).
Yet these aspects of social cohesion are declining. For example as many as two-thirds of Americans report a lack of belonging in at least one aspect of their life. 64% in the workplace, 68% in their country, and 74% in their local community. Simultaneously (and perhaps in association), affective polarization is increasing. In 1960, for instance, 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats responded that they would be displeased if their child married a member of the opposite party. By 2008, 27% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats said they would be upset by such a cross-party marriage. At present, 40% of partisans would be upset by such a union. Moreover, 42% of partisans view the other side as evil and 20% reported feeling that the US would be better off if a large portion of the other party died. Such affective polarization tends to reward obstructive, rather than collaborative, politics. It leads to distorted, dehumanized perceptions, impacting conclusions we draw about what is, and is not, possible, ultimately intensifying gridlock, dysfunction that stymies innovation, creativity and meaningful action.