Social Cohesion

What & Why

Social Cohesion is a framework for thriving in relationships on personal, community and societal levels.*

Like a compass, Social Cohesion orients towards greater, lasting, flourishing, reliance and creative adaptation to adversities and opportunities between people in groups of all sizes.

We understand social cohesion as the ongoing processes of:

  • Developing group members’ sense of being valued and treated with full regard, well-being, and voluntary social participation, while simultaneously

  • Honoring and celebrating a multiplicity of backgrounds, values and perspectives within (and beyond) the group, and

  • Safeguarding group members’ equal rights and opportunities. 

*This conceptualization, adapted from Fonseca, Lukosch and Brazier’s efforts, bridges various prevailing understandings of Social Cohesion, ranging from the Council of Europe and Canadian Government to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

What is Social Cohesion?

Like A Fractal

Like a fractal, Social Cohesion is a pattern recurring on many scales, from interpersonal levels (a relationship between two friends, a family) to community levels (an organization, a neighborhood, a town) to societal levels (state, region, country, etc). At each level, the principles are the same but the strategies may differ. 

Compass, not a map. 

Specific strategies for achieving the direction greater Social Cohesion for groups of various sizes, and within different social and cultural contexts, will look different, even if the principles are the same.

To arrive at strategies appropriate for various scale-levels and contexts, a set of questions can be asked:

Some examples of such questions include:

  • To what extent do group members feel valued and treated will full regard? To what extent do they voluntarily show up for each other?

  • Whose experiences, perspectives and backgrounds are recognized? To what extent do group members feel safe to voice experiences, perspectives backgrounds that differ from those of other group members, or from norms? How are disagreements handled?  

  • To what extent are we aware of actions, words and thoughts that may deprive other group members of rights and opportunities we ourselves enjoy? To what extent do we curtail such actions, words and thoughts?  

  • How are decisions made in this group? 

Particularity, not Sameness

Social Cohesion does not imply sameness: It is vital to navigate in ways appropriate to context, culture, roles, capacities, skills, etc.  So, for example, in a family, it is one thing to feel that economic decisions should also reflect current best understandings of an infant’s needs (and that adults’ responsibilities may therefore include understanding that infant, and attending to what it looks like when her needs are met/unmet). It is another thing entirely to suggest that an infant should be involved in economic decision-making processes in the same ways as an adult.

Each Domain is Necessary

Each of Social Cohesion’s domains is vital. And each needs the others to keep it in check, because, on their own, each of the elements 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.

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.