Social Cohesion and the Sustainable Welfare Society

David Phillips

(with Yitzhak Berman)

Background to Social Cohesion

TönniesGemeinschaft - cohesion by the family and peer group Gesellschraft - formal authority structures keep society together.

Durkheim Mechanistic solidarity - common values, beliefs and experiences enable people to co-operate successfully. Organic solidarity - shared expectations embodied in the law and market and maintained through interdependence: people cannot survive in isolation.

Talcott Parsons Normative integration - the highly complex, differentiated modern social system is kept together by people’s internalisation of, and attachment to, abstract common normative values.

Contemporary versions of social cohesion

Marxists: collective consciousness, produced by the division of labour in society : it is class consciousness.

T H Marshall: provision of political, legal and social equality - also used to legitimise economic inequality.

Liberal: flows from the rights and mutual respect of people interacting in pursuit of their own individual ends.

Neo-liberal: provided by buyers and sellers coming together in the market.

Communitarians: provided by the neighbourhood community

Wilkinson: countries with high levels of egalitarian social cohesion have lower mortality rates than countries with similar economic resources but lower levels of social cohesion.

Social Cohesion in Social Quality

Social quality is defined as: ‘the extent to which citizens are able to participate in the social and economic life of their communities under conditions which enhance their well-being and individual potential’ (Beck et al., 1997:3).

The notion of ‘the social’ is central to social quality: it is ‘the outcome of constantly changing processes through which human subjects realise themselves as interactive human beings’.

Central to this is the relationship between individual self realisation and the formation of collective identities.

The social is central to all the four ‘conditional factors’ of social quality: socio-economic security; social inclusion; social cohesion; and social empowerment.

Definition of social cohesion

Social cohesion can be defined as the nature of social relations based on shared identities, values and norms (Phillips, 2006a:178) or, more dynamically, as ‘the extent to which social relations, based on identities, values and norms, are shared’ (van der Maesen, 2006:9).

The notion of social relations is central to two other conditional factors too: social inclusion is about access to and integration into institutions and social relations; and social empowerment is about the enhancement of ability and capabilities by social relations. Herein lies the fundamental theoretical justification for the centrality of social cohesion to social quality.

Domains of social cohesion

Social cohesion – understood metaphorically as the glue that binds society together or as societal solidarity or, more prosaically, as being to do with social relations, norms, values and identities – is central to social life because the notions of communities and the social world itself are impossible without social cohesion.

Its domains are: Trust Other integrative norms and values Social networks Identity

Trust: sub-domains

General trust follows a similar logic to Fukuyama’s notion of trust as a generic moral resource, the strength of which can be measured by applying Fukuyama’s notion of ‘the radius of trust’. A similar approach, labelled ‘generalised trust’ is used in Hall’s (1999) powerful analysis of social capital in Britain (and as updated by Grenier and Wright, 2003).

Specific trust can be subdivided into two: institutional trust and personal trust. Institutional trust relates to trust by individuals, families and communities in the civic and societal institutions within the public domain, formal institutions and community frameworks. Personal trust relates to trust by individuals in significant others in their lives.

Trust: indicators

Generalisedtrust

Extent to which ‘most people can be trusted’

Specific trust: institutional

Trust in: government; elected representatives; political parties; armed forces; legal system; the media; trade unions, police; religious institutions; civil service; major companies; financial institutions; banks Trust in community leaders

Specific trust: personal

Trust in: family; friends; neighbours; peers (work colleagues etc.); people in daily interactions

Other integrative norms/values: sub-domains 1

Altruism is one of the most important and integrative social norms and is central to normative integration. Indeed it is difficult to conceptualise how a society with high levels of altruism could possibly have low levels of social solidarity and social cohesion.

Commonality and reciprocity, including: shared values; civic responsibility; and civic norms. These all relate to a feeling of belonging to society, community, family etc.

Social contract relates to civic engagement and covers the fundamental question of how much we as citizens are willing to spend and to do in order to foster commonality. In the public sphere this relates to what we will do for our community and how much we are willing to pay in taxes while in the private sphere it relates to household tasks, child rearing and caring for dependent relatives.

Other integrative norms/values: sub-domains 2

Social justice or fairness brings together commonality and social contract in institutional form. It is linked to the extent to which rights, duties and obligations are commonly accepted in society.

Tolerance is an apparently paradoxical aspect of commonality because instead of focusing on togetherness and bonding it relates to respecting

difference.

Other integrative norms & values: indicators 1

Altruism Volunteering: number of hours per weekBlood donations Charitable contributions

Commonality & reciprocity

Extent of reciprocityExpectations of others

Social contract Willingness to pay taxes to help disadvantaged groupsWillingness to undertake practical activities in neighbourhood (e.g. picking up litter)Division of domestic responsibilities

Other integrative norms & values: indicators 2

Justice: formal legal framework

Adherence to UN Declaration of Human Rights; Index of civil liberties; Gastill’s Index of Political rights; independence of judiciary

Justice: practice

Integrity in administration of justice; extent of arbitrary imprisonment; bribery; index of corruption; percentage of population facing political discrimination; index of intensity of political discrimination; civil rights activism; contract enforceability, access to information

Tolerance Views on immigration, pluralism and multiculturalismTolerance of other people’s beliefs, behaviours and lifestyle preferences

Social networks: sub-domains

Horizontal networks operate separately at each of the micro, meso and macro levels. family and kin; associations of civic engagement; and integration / bonding. The most classic examples of horizontal associations are informal and voluntary associations.

Vertical networks operate between levels. and are variously referred to as linkage, ties and bridges. These are at their most effective where local communities have networked links with national organisations or regional or national government agencies.

Cross-cutting ties are of central importance to effective and holistic social integration. High levels of social capital within communities can lead to animosity between them. It is the presence of cross-cutting ties that reduces this risk.

Social networks: indicators

Horizontal networks

Number and type of associations or local institutions; extent of membership; extent of participatory decision-making; reliance on networks of support.

Vertical networks

Links between local/community and national organisations; links between local/community organisations and government agencies

Cross-cutting ties

Extent of cross-membership of groups and associations (a) horizontally (b) vertically. the former can be measured using standard social network analysis techniques

Identity

Identity, is the most complex and perhaps problematic of the potential domains of social cohesion. Its importance is undoubted: indeed collective identities pervade the whole notion of social quality.

Sub-domains

The ‘identity’ component is unique in that it involves a potential conflict between identities at different levels of collectivity. Each of these forms a sub-domain:

National Regional / community / local Interpersonal

Identity: indicators

National Sense of national pride; support for national sporting teams; percentage of population involved in separatist movements

Regional / community / local

Sense of regional / community / local identity; identification with cultural, religious or ethnic identity

Interpersonal Sense of belonging to family and kinship network

Universality of domains, sub-domains and indicators?

Problematic indicators – e.g. residential care for older people?

Problematic sub-domains – e.g. commonality and reciprocity – underplays the family?

Are any sub-domains missing - e.g. supranational identity?

What about domains – e.g. social sustainability?

Sustainability, social quality and quality of life

Sustainability

First it is necessary to pin down the meaning or meanings of sustainability which will be used. Two dimensions of sustainability are addressed here: environmental sustainability and social sustainability. No apologies are made for not addressing economic sustainability which, as Alan Walker so cogently reminded participants at the first Asian conference on social quality, has already been give disproportionate attention

Environmental sustainability

Weak environmental sustainability focuses strongly on technological fixes, substitutability, expanding resources and replacing renewables, and places limited emphasis on conservation.

A middling approach raises the profile of conservation above renewability and substitutability and aims to sustain those aspects of the natural world whose loss would be irreversible.

Stronger notions of environmental sustainability place an intrinsic value to nature which must be sustained at all costs. Conservation is the primary strategy here. It requires contraction of consumption and the adaptation of human behaviour to fit in with the finite resources of the planet. These have the most profound consequences for social quality.

Social sustainability 1

If environmental sustainability is about the survival, nurturing and thriving of the physical environment of the planet then social sustainability is about the survival, nurturing and thriving – in other words the well-being – of all the people living on the planet both now and in the future. Again there is a continuum from rather timid through to very robust formulations. The most cautious formulations focus on the present and near-future and stress the importance of safety nets whereas the most forceful approaches require redistribution in contemporary society and strong safeguards for the future.

Social sustainability 2

Weak: ‘a path along which the maximisation of human well-being for today’s generation does not lead to declines on future well-being’ (OECD). It highlights the worry that the goals of socially sustainable development may conflict with economic efficiency and the effective operation of markets.

Aspirational: Ballet et al.: socially sustainable development: guarantees an improvement of the capabilities of well-being for both present and future generations through the aspiration of both intragenerational distribution and transmission across generations.

Robust formulations of social sustainability have the goal of enabling all people, present and future, to pursue their well-being. Many of these approaches to social sustainability have strong resonances social quality.

Social and environmental sustainability

One of the major challenges in the conceptual and theoretical development of sustainability lies in teasing out and explicating the relationship between environmental and social sustainability – a seriously under-analysed relationship. At face value it seems that there is little difficulty in integrating the weak versions of both facets of sustainability whereas the requirement for a contemporary baseline of equity, even before moving to socially sustainable equity in the future, is sure to pose a major challenge for the middling version of environmental sustainability and, unless there are to be major constraints on population growth in the near future, there appear to be intolerable strains between the strong versions of social and environmental sustainability.

Social quality and sustainability: the story so far 1

Walker sets the scene by identifying social quality as being transformative in relation to sustainability in that a social quality discourse. He suggests:

a completely new way of understanding sustainability by asking if the constitution of society, including the particular institutional arrangements it has put in place to promote welfare, lead to a sustained level of social quality. … Moreover it challenges policy makers to subject all policies, economic as well as social, to the test of social quality impact and to examine the costs of failing to achieve a sufficient level of social quality. This does not remove the question of the financial sustainability of social policies but it subordinates it to the overarching issues of the nature of society and the well-being of citizens.’ (Walker, 2006:14)

Social quality and sustainability: the story so far 2

van der Maesen (2006:26): sustainable welfare societies are predicated on the four normative considerations of social quality: (i) human dignity, (ii) solidarity, (iii) social justice and equity, (iv) democratic based citizenship.

These are intrinsically linked to the four conditional factors of social quality. Thus, at least in terms of intent, sustainability is central to social quality. This is unarguable in that the notion of a social quality which is ephemeral or temporary or unsustained has to a worse social quality than one which is sustained. The challenge for this conference is to begin to tease out, articulate and elucidate this central relationship.

Conclusions: Social cohesion, social quality and sustainability: the way forward? 1

The next important step is to analyse the tensions in the relationship between social quality and sustainability. In principle this should not be too difficult a task because the overriding normative principles to social quality are consonant with at least the weaker versions of environmental sustainability and – hopefully – the strongest versions of social sustainability.

In practice though the will be difficulties because strong environmental sustainability is predicated upon an understanding of the finite stock of natural resources, and it is clear that at least one of the conditional factors of social quality, socio-economic security, requires the availability of tangible natural resources. The relationship between social cohesion and finite environmental resources is more opaque and much less tangible.

Conclusions: Social cohesion, social quality and sustainability: the way forward? 2

Indeed it is worth noting that there is a very different relationship between environmental sustainability and, on the one hand, socio-economic security and on the other hand with the other three social quality conditional factors. this is because social inclusion, social cohesion and social empowerment are exclusively social and non-material and can therefore, in principle, be enhanced and optimised via social intervention alone without having to use natural resources. Of course, in practice, it is often most beneficial to use more tangible resources, particularly financial resources, in this endeavour. but this is not a necessary requirement.

Conclusions: Social cohesion, social quality and sustainability: the way forward? 3

However, material resources are absolutely central to socio-economic security – and therefore transcend the purely social as epitomised in what could be termed the essence of social quality as individual self-realisation and the formation of collective identities. This transcendence is consistent with the original definition of social quality give above as: ‘the extent to which citizens are able to participate in the social and economic life of their communities under conditions which enhance their well-being and individual potential’ It is the tension between the finiteness of natural resources and the requirement for adequate socio-economic security for everyone in the world which poses an intellectual challenge for social quality theorists as well as being one of the – if not the most – pressing practical challenges facing the world today.