Social Cohesion

Social Cohesion is like an Ecosystem

The dimensions of social cohesion both drive and temper each other, like in an ecosystem. 

The dimensions drive each other

Sustained change in one — or more — of the dimensions is likely to reflect in the others.

On smaller group levels

• Imagine a classroom or small work team. The greater the extent of full regard and understanding one accords to a colleague, the more likely it is that different perspectives and experiences will be visible, and that these will be honored, even celebrated.  These dimensions in turn strengthens the desire for fairness towards that colleague. Neurology research shows that when we feel personally connected to someone, fairness to that person activates our own brain's reward centers - it literally feels like pleasure when they are treated well. (Tricomi, Rangel, Camerer, O'Doherty; Liberman). 

On larger group levels

On larger group levels, similar dynamics can be seen in the relationship between norms, attitudes and policies. Over time and given certain conditions (e.g. greater democratic practices, etc), changes in the recognition of other people’s dignity, inherent value and perspectives may lead to policy shifts. 

• One illustration of how gradually evolving norms and perceptions lead to policy shifts is the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US. In this case, different experiences and perspectives were visible — but, societally, the dimension of belonging was weak. In 1996, Gallup reported just 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, across party, religious and institutional lines (McCarthy). Over the next two decades, support for same-sex marriage steadily increased. By 2015 58% of Americans were in support. This incremental change in public opinion about which Americans are worthy of full regard, and, in turn, which experiences and perspectives would be honored,  created the conditions for policy shifts. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage, followed by several other states in ensuing years (Pierceson).  While local laws often faced legal resistance, highlighting the non-linear nature of progress (Kazyak, 2011), momentum increased. Finally, in the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, the US Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, ruling that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges). 

  As this example also shows, the pace of change in the various dimensions often varies. A group’s policies may remain on the books even while group members’ norms and perceptions gradually evolve. Policies may then jump to realign with attitudes and values.

Supreme Court, Tuesday Morning by Lorie Shaull CC BY 2.0,via Wikimedia Commons

Likewise, changes in the dimension of protections of equal rights and opportunities drive shifts in the dimensions of belonging and visibility of different perspectives and experiences, however granular. 

• For example, the ordination of women as rabbis in the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements has profoundly influenced gender norms and attitudes within these faith communities. In 1972, Sally Priesand became the first American woman ordained by the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (the seat of Reform Judaism). By 2020, over 1,000 women have followed in her footsteps (Karabelnicoff). As Rabbi Naamah Kelman-Ezrachi, dean of the Hebrew Union College’s Jerusalem campus, states, these women have "totally transformed Judaism" through their scholarship, teaching, preaching, and leadership. This policy change has had  important impact on many women who previously felt excluded from spiritual leadership, influencing the ways younger generations now view gender equality within Judaism. The impacts can be seen in the gender composition of rabbinic students: By 2019, half of those enrolled in Hebrew Union College were female. 

  It is important to note that the effects of change in one dimension on the others occurs in both positive and negative spirals: Weakening one or more of the  dimensions also hurts the others.

The dimensions temper each other

The dimensions of social cohesion keep each other in check. Neglecting any one dimension can lead to groupthink, echo chambers, intensified othering, or conflicts, breeding dysfunction and division.

Strong belonging, weak visibility of different perspectives & experiences

While cultivating a strong sense of belonging within communities is crucial, it must be balanced with recognition of a multiplicity of experiences, backgrounds and perspectives. When groups become too insular and homogeneous, they risk falling into the trap of groupthink nd echo chambers with less focus on facts (Levine, Apfelbaum, Bernard, et al) and less innovation (Phillips, Liljenquist, & Neale).

• Even well-intentioned groups providing a powerful sense of connection and meaning for their members can arrive at profoundly misguided conclusions when operating in isolation, without being challenged by differing viewpoints. For example, consider the Heaven’s Gate cult. Members reported feeling a deep sense of purpose, acceptance and belonging within the group, reinforced by shared beliefs and daily rituals (Zeller). But this intense group identity, together with lack of exposure to outside perspectives, ultimately led to tragedy: In 1997, believeing that Earth was about to be 'recycled' and that the only way to survive was to leave their human bodies behind and enter a higher level of existence, 39 members killed themselves, convinced that a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet would usher transcendent consciousness (Chryssides).

 Strong belonging with weak visibility of different perspectives & experiences may also lead to intensified othering (VanAlstine, Cox, Roden) and intergroup conflict (Byman). The story of a different cult offers illustration. In the 1980s, Oregon was home to the Rajneesbpuram community. Led by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (later known as Osho), the cult attracted thousands of followers worldwide.

Members were drawn to the promise of spiritual enlightenment, personal growth, and a sense of belonging within a like-minded community. They lived, meditated and worked together on a 64,000-acre ranch, wearing orange and red clothing that erased many visible differences (Latkin). Many members reported feeling a deep sense of acceptance and purpose within the group, reinforced by their shared devotion to Rajneesh's teachings (Goldman). Yet the community's insular nature and lack of diverse perspectives led to increasingly extreme and illegal behavior. In 1984, convinced of their rightness and the wrongness of “the others,” members led a bioterror attack, contaminating local salad bars with salmonella in an attempt to influence a county election (Carus).

Weak belonging, strong visibility of different perspectives & experiences

 Stronger diversity with weak belonging can likewise exacerbate conflict, increase communication barriers and further entrench affective polarization (VanAlstine, Cox, Roden). For example, In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice investigated the Ferguson, Missouri police department following the shooting of Michael Brown. The DOJ found that while the city's population was 67% Black, its police force was 92% white. The investigation revealed a pattern of racial bias, with Black residents disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested.  The lack of representation and belonging intensified dangerous reductions of people to binary “us” vs monolithic, typically dehumanized “them.” It bred deep mistrust between the community and police, contributing to the unrest that followed Brown's shooting (U.S. Department of Justice).

Strong belonging & visibility of different perspectives & experiences, with weak protections of equal rights & opportunities

    Strong belonging, strong visibility of different perspectives and experiences coupled with weak protections of equal rights and opportunities contributes to the indignities and dehumanization of being treated as second-class citizens. This ripples negatively throughout the Social Cohesion ecosystem. For example, consider the plight of African American soldiers who, irrespective of feelings of belonging in ethnically diverse battalions, returned from WWII to a US in which they could neither vote, nor drink from the same water fountains as brothers-in-arms with whom they risked their lives (Clark).

The relationships are dynamic and multi-directional.