Cole Genge
Educ.
870 (3)
May 14, 2001
Learning for Social Cohesion
This section explores the topic of learning for social cohesion by exploring two important areas of study: the first reviews a selection of theoretical arguments, while the second looks at the issue of social cohesion. The first section reviews some of the literature concerning the dismantling (conflict theory from psychology and sociology) and building (social capital from sociology, economics and political science) perspectives of social cohesion. The second section explores the subject of social cohesion from the personal and small group level, the societal level, and variables in the socialization process of learning for social cohesion.
1. Major Theoretical Argument
Learning for social cohesion is not a specific area of study, though it encompasses a set of issues that have been increasingly important in a conflict-ridden world. Social cohesion represents the absence of latent conflict whether caused by racial, economic or political reasons, among others; and the presence of strong social bonds, as noted by the existence of trust, reciprocity, associations crosscutting social divisions and the presence of institutions of conflict management (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000). It is the elements that conform to this notion that contribute to the building of communities and strengthening of social bonds, especially under condition of civil unrest and hardship. Learning for social cohesion at times of social trauma, threat or change posses a different view on an age-old problem: what contributes to the breakdown, and in like manner, what contributes to the rebuilding of trust and reciprocity between previous rivals.
During the 1950s several sociologists began to seriously explore some of the assumptions about the nature of society and initiated what has come to be known as the ‘order-conflict debate’ (see Dahrendorf, 1959; Lockwood, 1956). This debate centered around the notion of “the nature of social order and equilibrium on the one hand, and those which were more concerned with problems of change, conflict and coercion in social structures on the other” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 10). Much emphasis has gone into explaining order and equilibrium in society, while relatively little (comparatively speaking) has been written on conflict, though a growing body of literature in the area of psychology explores socio-environmental impacts on individuals and groups alike. This section explores a couple of the theoretical arguments concerning the dismantling or building of social cohesion. Two areas are explored: the first, looks at arguments from conflict theory – both from psychology and sociology – and the second, delves into social capital theory.
a. Perspectives on Conflict
Social conflict is a notion
that stems from the inequities in societies around the world that give rise to
tension, aggression and violence – when extreme. Their sources can be economic,
ethnic, and ideologic among others. Despite the fact humans are social beings,
interaction between humans leads to conflict at some point. The discussion that
follows seeks to better understand the phenomenon of human conflict. The
effects of the environment on human behavior (i.e. the nurture argument) influences
much of the argument that follows. A couple of aspects of conflict are
discussed: the first looks at primarily psychological aspects while the second
explores one of the seminal sociological views on social conflict.
Psychological Aspects
Humans are social animals who seek to fulfill their basic human needs. These needs are psychological – not biological – and include the need for security from physical and psychological harm, the need for effectiveness and control which provides our sense of fulfillment, and the need for positive identity and self-awareness among others (Staub, in progress). The frustration of basic human needs leads to stress, aggression, and even violence in extreme cases. However, stress and aggression are natural human responses that come forth as a consequence of danger (real or perceived) and this, in turn, constitutes a form of conflict. Conflict implies engendering interactions at more intense levels than competition, although conflict, competition, and cooperation are inherently independent. Conflict occurs when competing groups’ goals, objectives, needs or values clash and aggression is a result, though not necessarily violent (Schelling, 1960).
The conditions that
instigate aggression come from two major sources. The first, frustration, is a
result of interference, failure, or lack of goal fulfillment, while the second,
comes from an attack on or threat to life and can be extended to material
well-being and self-esteem (Staub, 1989). In addition, there are other
conditions that contribute to a rise in aggressiveness such as: heat, noise,
crowding, and general arousal level (i.e. sexual arousal). These environmental
conditions or bodily states[1]
contribute to aggressiveness but generally only after frustration or threat
have triggered them. Sociobiologists argue that human beings are genetically
predisposed to respond to aggression in order to ensure the survival and
transmission of genes (Wilson, 1975). The probability of aggressive responses
increases despite the fact no particular mode of aggression is genetically based.
Though genetics undoubtedly play a role in a person’s predisposition to
aggressiveness, a more likely source comes from the environment, as evidenced
by the great range of variation both from individuals and groups alike. “The
environment – external influences from conception onward – has a major role in
shaping our individuality by shaping the expression of genes” (Kotulak, 1993,
p. 36). The following paragraphs explore several authors’ perspectives on
stress, aggression and violence as they contribute to the notion of conflict.
Kotulak’s (1996) work
highlights the importance of the environment, not only in the shaping and
molding of psychological processes that lead toward aggression, but also on the
detrimental effects it has on shaping the expression of genes. In other words,
“stresses caused by bad experiences can affect genes” (p. 36), and
“environmental events [cause] molecular changes in the brain that make people
more impulsive” (p. 78). Social conflict, in such a case, stems from socio-environmental
conditions that are stress filled, aggressive and often violent. Moreover,
aggression is triggered in the brain by two powerful chemicals, serotonin and
noradrenaline. These chemical stimuli become hypersensitive under conditions of
stress when an individual’s physiological responses “keep the body in a
constant state of readiness – heart racing, blood pressure high, easy to
startle, [and] quick to blow up” (p. 81). These are conditions which lead to
increased tendencies to act before thinking. This is the case especially among
children and youth, who are predisposed to “use aggressive and violent
strategies to deal with life’s daily challenges” (p. 81). Thus, the biochemical
blueprints for violent behavior are set when imbalances in genetically susceptible
individuals take place and similar conditions may also occur under conditions
of extreme environmental duress.
Diamond and Hopson’s (1998)
work focuses on the effects of conflictual situations on childhood development
in North America. Their argument combines environmental impacts on genetic
predispositions to aggression and violence. They point out that “people born to
poverty, neglect, and drug exposures, or restricted experience usually have a
life outcome influenced by deprivation” (p. 290). Their deprivation often leads
to frustrated interactions with others and may turn into cycles of conflict-aggression-conflict.
Such circumstances are not only detrimental to the individual and society from
a psychological standpoint, but also affect the economic prosperity of a nation
by “dramatically underrealizing the true potential of human beings” (p. 293).
Diamond and Hopson suggest that environmental conditions such as poverty,
emotional climate, and exposure to chemicals negatively affect infants from the
moment of conception and beyond in the areas of anxiety regulation, emotional
connectivity, and cognition.
Staub (1989), a social
psychologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus, argues human
beings have the potential to be either altruistic or aggressive, but ultimately,
environmental influences affect individual and group behavior during times of
extreme conflict. Staub’s contributions in the area of social conflict are
enriched by his work on the origins of genocide and mass killings. He suggests
that certain conditions and cultural characteristics can generate the
psychological conditions for one group to turn against another. Extreme
conflict can have severe psychological effects, and these “progress along a
continuum [which may end in] destruction. People learn and change by doing, by
participation, as a consequence of their own actions” (Staub, 1989, p. 17). A
second source comes as a result of difficult life conditions, including extreme
economic hardship, hostility and violence, political violence and rapid change
can lead to increased aggression and mistreatment. Yet another source comes
from personal and cultural preconditions; this aspect involves self-concept,
goals and aims, value orientations and ingroup-outgroup differentiation, as
well as cultural aggressiveness among others. A final source comes from the
societal-political organization an individual is immersed in where factors such
as authoritarian or totalitarian systems, social institutions discriminating
(vs. promoting harmony, cooperation, and altruism), or institutions capable of
carrying out mistreatment have substantial influence on people (Staub, 1989).
The work of Robben and
Suárez-Orozco (2000), a Dutch anthropologist and a Harvard psychologist,
centers around the issues of violence and trauma – both consequences of extreme
social conflict. Their contributions are in the area of examining root causes
to large-scale violence. They explore the socio-cultural context and highlight
the use of multiple approaches to understanding the impacts of trauma in both
individuals and groups alike. Human beings’ higher-order neocortical capacities
separate us from other primates and allows for “efficient, systematized, and
over-determined acts of collective violence” (p. 2). Such capacities, Robben
and Suárez-Orozco contend, are latent in all of us and, when exercised, “social
violence continues to pursue its victims long after the slaughter ends and the
peace treaties are signed” (p. 5). However, such latent aggressiveness has its
origins in society and its institutions. Ideological structures, meaning the doctrines,
opinions, or ways of thinking of an individual or class, can instigate divisiveness,
foster hatred, and encourage violence, as was the case with Nazism; and the interpretation
of religious scripts instigating ideologies of hatred. “If rage in loss,
endangerment, and mourning offers the psychological framework to systematized
violence, ideology offers it an intellectual and moral framework” (Robben &
Suárez-Orozco, 2000, p. 6). Economic forces play an important role in feeding
systems of violence and aggression[2],
in fact some would argue it is one of the most powerful forces leading towards
human destructiveness. Ideologies and economics mold the social institutions that
provide the tools, the know-how, and the psychological support for carrying out
systematic atrocities. For example, a “bureaucracy of terror [is] required to
build and operate concentration camps, rape camps, and torture camps”[3]
(Robben & Suárez-Orozco, 2000, p. 9). Extreme conflict and large-scale
violence takes on characteristics of their own and “targets social bonds and
cultural practices as much as it targets the body and the psyche” (Robben &
Suárez-Orozco, 2000, p. 10).
In summary, Kotulak’s work
highlights the biological effects to the human brain and psyche as a result of
socio-environmental conditions. Diamond and Hopson’s contributions are in the
area of childhood development and their predisposition to aggression and violence
as a result of their environment. Staub writes about patterns in environmental
conditions that sufficiently alter individuals and groups alike into committing
increasingly aggressive and violent acts, either directed to themselves or
others. Robben and Suárez-Orozco’s work explores the impacts of social trauma
and their origins within social, economic and ideologic institutions in
society. These views, though limited in their scope, provide a sense of the
bitter flavor that socio-environmental impacts have on the human condition.
Though humans are one of the most resilient of species, capable of adapting to
unthinkable physical extremes – living beyond the arctic circle or in the heart
of the Kalahari for example – psychological extremes, on the other hand, seem
to harbor impacts the likes of which are never really overcome. The next
section seeks to better understand some of the principles affecting social
conflict from a sociological perspective.
Sociological Aspects
Conflict or social conflict
is pervasive in sociological literature and spans back into the mid 19th
century. One of the seminal contributors to the basic functionalist roots of conflict
theory in sociology continues to be Karl Marx. His overall schema in the
analysis of revolutionary social change, which he envisioned as the outcome of
social conflict, has some of the following characteristics.
In any relatively stable society, there exists an equilibrium between
the mode of production, the social relations which are integral to that mode of
production, and the ‘superstructure’ which, through the medium of class
domination is tied in with it. When progressive changes occur in the sphere of
productive activity – such as happened in Rome with the emergence of
manufacture and commerce within a predominantly agrarian economy – a tension is
set up between these new productive forces and the existing relations of production.
The existing relations of production then increasingly form barriers to the
emergent forces of production. These ‘contradictions’ become expressed as overt
class conflicts, terminating in revolutionary struggles fought out in the
political sphere, and manifest ideologically as a clash between competing
‘principles’
(Giddens, 1971, p. 44).
Thus, inequities between
social groups of differing interests – the haves vs. the have nots, the
industrialized vs. the non-industrialized – lead to conflict between them.
Outcomes of such struggles often result in ‘the common ruin of the contending
classes’ as occurred in Rome, or ‘a revolutionary reconstitution of society at
large’ as happened when feudalism was replaced by capitalism (Giddens, 1971).
Though Marx’s views are embedded in human labor, Marx’s theory emphasizes system-contradictions
as opposed to system maintenance, and it argues that class conflict is
pervasive in society (i.e. capitalist society) and serves as a means of
transitioning. Marx alludes to the fact when he says “In the social productions
of their lives, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent
of their will” (Marx, 1859/1951, preface). He asserts that humans lose their
freedom when confronted with an alien (or hitherto unrealized) social force and
thus, conflict is an inherent part of human activity. In this sense, “social
relations never can be purely ‘material’. They consist of expectations and
responses to those expectations” (Rex, 1981, p. 67). The study of conflicts in
institutions and practices are an essential part of neo-Marxist thought.
Social conflict theory has
gained unique contributions from its interactions with Marxist thought. John
Rex (1981), a sociologist at the University of Aston, England, speaks of four
unique contributions of Marxism. First, it locates the institution of
production as the center of its analysis, and looks at that institution as
dependent from political as well as technological factors. Second, it brings to
the forefront new latent social relations in a technological society and the
unfolding of conflict and contradictions between those latent social relations
and the one already operating in society. Third, it suggests building a complex
relationship between small (basic) and large (superstructural) institutions. A
final contribution stems from the relationship between system-conflict and the
conflict between people and classes.
Other sociological based
views on conflict have certainly come forth since Marx, however, this paper
only attempts to mention a few to highlight contributions from Marxist theory.
A neo-Marxist view on conflict escalation is based on the premise of perceived
legitimacy within a social environment. This view is especially relevant when
tensions are social or ethnic based[4],
thereby affecting individuals and groups alike. However, in- and out-group
differentiations seem to go through a process of social conflict, as aggression
increases.
Rex (1981) has suggested
several stages of aggression between in-groups and out-groups. Initially,
conflict begins as verbal and ideological disagreement. This stage tends to end
when one party imposes over the other their moral or cognitive views or
ideally, both parties come to terms over their mistakes. When agreement is not
reached, passive resistance comes into play. This involves the denial of any
normative demands on the part of the perceived aggressor and the aggravated
surrenders only under force. In this sense, the aggressor attempts to ‘rule
over’ the other; generally this takes on the form of denying facilities or
services, and withdrawing from or changing the nature of the relationship. The
next stage of aggression is born out of pride and results in withdrawal from a
relationship altogether and the reconstruction of a new basis. However, such a
stance is extreme and is dependent on the possibility of going elsewhere to get
comparable facilities and rewards. As aggression continues to escalate,
violence comes into play as a means of gaining power. The use of physical
violence, then, is a vehicle for achieving submission on the ‘other’.
Ultimately, physical violence escalates into killing on an individual level,
and when aggression is widespread in society, mass killing and genocide are
possible.
In closing, Marxist thought provides important contributions to the evolving theory and field of conflict, and neo-Marxism provides a means by which to identify conflict escalation. Conflict can, and does, take place between actors in any institutional system, be it religious, political, industrial, or educational – among others. Institutions are more or less dependent on one another; in this sense conflict in one institution will reflect conflict in another, especially conflicts in larger institutions will be reflected in smaller ones. Inter-institutional conflict is another level where societal conflict dominates over industrial conflict, for example. Finally, returning to the individual, notions of in- and out- groups can have a detrimental effect both on persons and groups of persons alike.
b.
Social Capital
The concept of social
capital – “a glue that holds society together” (Serageldin, 1996, p. 196) – has
been around for some time. It grew, in part, as a natural extension of the concept
of physical capital primarily in the
realm of tools, machines and other productive equipment when human capital was
included as well (see Schultz, 1961; Becker, 1964). However, the term is first
introduced by the French scholar Pierre Bourdieu (1986), when he defined it in
theoretical terms as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which
are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 248). His inspiration
for social capital came from studies on the inequity of scholastic achievement
among different social classes; however, his findings reached a limited
audience as his publication was in French. The term was first introduced in the
English speaking world when James Coleman (1988), a University of Chicago
leading sociologist, defined it as a “social structure [that] facilitates
certain actions of actors within the structure” (p. 98). Another early contributor
to the shaping of this term from an economics standpoint was the Harvard (political
scientist) Robert Putnam (1993), who defined social capital as a “set of
horizontal associations [among those who have an effect on the productivity of
a community, and these can take the form of] network[s] of civic engagement”
(p. 35).
Social capital has many
interpretations primarily coming from the fields of sociology, economics and
political science. This section will focus on several of the definitions initiated
by the authors above as well as others and explore vertical and horizontal
social capital linkages that can facilitate the analysis and study of
conflictual situations in society.
Norms, values and social
relations are the bonds that hold communities together. In addition, these are
the means by which to reach across differences and begin to build trust. Social
capital is better known for its contributions in the area of sustainable
development as alluded to in “[meeting] the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generation to generate their own needs”
(Bundtland Commision, 1987, p. 43). Thus, social capital has been referred to
as “systems that lead to or result from social and economic organization, such
as worldviews, …reciprocity, informational and economic exchange and informal
and formal groups and associations” (Colleta & Cullen, 2000, p. 6). With these principles in mind, there is
substantial agreement about the important role social capital can have in
facilitating collective action, economic growth, and development through
complementary forms of capital (Groostaert, 1998). However, though the general
premise for social capital shares a common base, no one definition has come to
embody the multiple contributions made by scholars and practitioners alike. The
discussion that follows is a series of ‘figurative windows’ into the
‘theoretical homes’ of various authors who have contributed to broadening an
understanding of the meaning and scope of social capital, while highlighting
some of their central arguments and criticisms.
Theoretical Arguments:
Bourdieu (1986)
differentiates three forms of capital (economic, cultural, and social) as they
relate to the field of education and their contributions to scholastic
achievement. His work on the convertibility of capital, and how this process
forms part of the basis by which groups and individuals ensure the reproduction
of capital, is grounded on the notion that understanding the structure and functioning
of the social world involves looking at capital in its multiple forms. Bourdieu
acknowledges that “the volume of social capital possessed by a given agent thus
depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize
and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural, or symbolic) possessed in
his own right by each of those to whom he is connected” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.
249). Thus, he comes to terms with the fact that social capital does not always
keep the best interests in mind. In fact, mechanisms of delegation or
representation that enable some individuals to act in unison, thereby
overcoming any limitations of time or space, may also “contain the seeds of an
embezzlement or misappropriation of the capital which they assemble” (Bourdieu,
1986, p. 251).
Coleman’s (1988) definition
of social capital looks at its function and although he identifies many
different entities he found two common elements: (1) they consist of some aspect
of social structure, and (2) they facilitate certain actions of actors within
the structure. These elements constitute the basis for inferences made towards
vertical association, as exemplified by hierarchy and unequal distributions of
power within a group. In this way, social capital can be beneficial and useless
or harmful to others depending on its characteristics and circumstances of use.
As with other forms of capital, “social capital is productive, making possible
the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence”
(Coleman, 1990, p. 302).
Putnam’s work, tracing patterns of civic engagement in northern
Italy, elaborates on the nature of horizontal relations. He identifies social
capital as “features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and
truths, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”
(Putnam, 1993, p. 36). Communities that enjoy economic prosperity and effective
government are those with strong “norms and networks of civic engagement” (p.
37). These networks lay the groundwork for reciprocity, solidarity and
participation, which in turn reinforce communal sentiments of trust and improve
the effectiveness of communication between individuals and institutions. In
this sense, social capital is “a resource whose supply increases rather than
decreases with use (as contrasted to physical capital which) becomes depleted
if not used” (pp. 37-38).
Fukuyama (1995) builds on
the argument put forth by Coleman that trust is a key measure of social capital
and emphasizes that it accumulates through norms of reciprocity and successful
cooperation in networks of civic engagement. It “arises when a community shares
a set of oral values in such a way as to create expectations of regular and
honest behavior” (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 153). Furthermore, he highlights the
importance of cultural roots in defining ethical and moral habits, as
exemplified by virtues and values. Reciprocity,
civic duty, and moral obligations are crucial to the formation and maintenance
of a stable society and are the behaviors that should come forth from a
thriving civil society. A healthy and dynamic civil society “depends on
people’s habits, customs, and ethics – attributes that can be shaped only
indirectly through conscious political action and must otherwise be nourished
through an increased awareness and respect for culture” (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 5).
According to Norman Uphoff
(2000), social capital is “an accumulation of various types of social,
psychological, cognitive, institutional, and related assets that increase the
amount (or probability) of mutually beneficial cooperative behavior” (Uphoff,
2000, p. 216). This kind of behavior is productive for others as well as one
self. Uphoff breaks social capital down into structural and cognitive
components. Structural capital is associated
with networks, relationships, and associations or institutional structures made
possible via vertical and horizontal linkages between members. Horizontal
relationships take place amongst equals or near equals while vertical
relationships are attributed to hierarchies and/or unequal relationships due to
power or resource differences. Cognitive
social capital includes values, norms, civic responsibility, expected
reciprocity, charity, altruism, and trust. Ultimately, both domains of social
capital are intrinsically connected though they share networks, roles,
precedents and procedures – all come from cognitive processes and while
“structural social capital assets are extrinsic and observable, […] cognitive
social capital assets are not” (Uphoff, 2000, p. 218).
North (1990) and Olson
(1982) look at different aspect of social capital. While they speak of trust,
norms, and networks, they also stress the sociopolitical environment that
shapes norms and social structures. This view also includes more formalized
institutional relationships and structures such as the government, the
political regime, the market, the rule of law, the court system, as well as
civil and political liberties (Grootaert, 1998). Another author, Deepa Narayan (1999) in her work examining the
dynamics of complementarity and substitution, emphasizes the importance of
including the state in social capital analysis. She argues that “the focus must
be not only civic engagement, ideally characterized by inclusive, cross-cutting
ties that link unlike individuals and groups, but also on the effectiveness of
the state” (Colleta & Cullen, 2000,
pp. 11-12).
Bourdieu’s work
differentiated three forms of capital – economic, cultural, and social – and
puts forth the notion that capital can be converted from one form into another.
Coleman’s and Putman’s work highlights the horizontal and vertical aspects of
social capital, while Fukuyama’s findings stress the need for trust in building
social capital. Uphoff’s work identifying cognitive and structural aspects of
social capital facilitates analysis, while North and Olson speak of the
sociopolitical levels and Narayan is inclusive of the state in working with
social capital.
The authors reviewed above
have looked at social capital from multiple perspectives but they have
overlooked a crucial point – the role of women in social capital and cohesiveness
building. The role of women in contributing to the building, maintenance and
repair of the social fabric is often disregarded in the public eye. And yet
they are the primary stewards of social cohesion, initially in the home (often
tolerating inhumane levels of abuse and neglect in order to buffer and protect
their infants, children or loved ones - for an extraordinary account refer to
O’Connell-Higgins, (1994)), and later in society at large (an example is Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, the
mothers of the disappeared in Argentina). In the peace building arena, women
have been instrumental in speaking out for Human
security a concept that is based on the notion of security for one’s life
and person. The women of the Chiapas Zapatista movement enumerated several
aspects of human security in their demands to the Mexican State. They demanded
(and continue to do so) the right to work and a just salary; the right to
choose the number of children they will have; the right to participate in
governance; the right to health for themselves and their children; the right to
education; the right to choose their partner; and the right to life free of
violence and abuse (Mujeres Zapatistas, 1993). These rights serve as examples
of what human security is meant by women (in this case a highly organized
indigenous women’s movement that coalesced as a result of the ceaseless efforts
of women who had endured far more than any human being should).
The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke of women’s role in peace
and security by saying they are “building bridges rather than walls”, and
“preserving social order when communities collapse” (UN, 2000 October). Women’s
roles in society have throughout history been cohesive in nature; today their
actions can fit under the label of social capital. Yet women’s efforts and
roles in both the private and public spheres go unnoticed, “time and again when
the red carpet is rolled up and the cameras turn off, it is civil society,
women organizations, [and] community groups that get down to the real business
of peace building. They are the people who have the commitments and the long
term interest” (International Alert, 2001, last paragraph-manifesto). The role
of women in contributing to the healing of warring fronts and the rebuilding of
the social fabric is immeasurable, yet time an again efforts to celebrate and
acknowledge their merits are systematically subdued the world over; this is a
trend that must stop for it makes us all weaker, poorer and less able to
transcend our differences and reach true human security for all.
Figure 4 (below) is a
synthesis of both horizontal and vertical social capital as these interact
within a setting amongst different actors in working towards social cohesion or
an escalation to violent conflict. The greater the extent to which vertical
linking and horizontal bridging takes place, the greater a sense of integration
and cohesiveness is established. This in turn leads to inclusiveness in
mediation processes and curbs the potential for the presence of violent crimes.
Conversely, the weaker the reinforcement potential of socialization mechanisms
such as values and compliance mechanisms or social control, the weaker the
social cohesion. And weak social cohesion heightens the risk for the crumbling
of social institutions, the exclusion of minorities, and disorganization while
tempting the potential for violent conflict to arise. Social capital can be
used in support of social cohesion and be a constructive element in the
building of trust and hope in a conflict ridden area. But it can just as easily
be perverted to hasten social fragmentation and the onset of violent conflict.
Unlike physical capital, social capital must be used for it to accrue, it is
hard to observe and measure, and does not become stronger on the basis of external
intervention (Ostrom, 2000).
Figure 4; Mapping Social Cohesion
|
High social cohesion, low
conflict ·
Inclusion ·
Rule
of law, democratic state ·
Access
and equality of opportunity ·
Open
society Civil Society Bonding Bridging (kin, religious,
(cross-cutting ties)
and ethnic-based) Low social cohesion, high conflict ·
Exclusion ·
Oppressive,
authoritarian state ·
Inequity/inequality ·
Corrupt,
inefficient bureaucracy ·
Closed
society |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Cohesion: the integration of vertical linking and horizontal bridging social capital
Source: from Colleta & Cullen (2000, p. 14)
In conclusion, the term
social capital has received widespread attention in the last 10 to 15 years and
yet the diversity of views make it complicated to map any kind of ‘theoretical bullet points’. However, a
brief review of several prominent theoreticians and practitioners of social
capital theory has been presented. Most authors agree on findings showing that
local associations and networks have a positive impact on economic welfare and
local development, play a positive role in environmental management and are one
of the key factors in promoting institutional and social structures for
managing conflict. The next sub-section explores some of the underpinning
reasons for the emergence and sustenance of social cohesion in society.
2.
Social Cohesion
Social cohesion is a broad concept incorporating many facets, including: the absence of latent conflict in its multiple forms, and the presence of strong social bonds – as evidenced by trust, reciprocity, and cross-cutting social divisions among others (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000). Though the concept has been often used in the context of war-torn or post-conflict situations, it can very well be applied to communities undergoing moderate to severe tensions or stress for multiple reasons. This section explores the subject of building social cohesion in the context of the personal and small group level, as well as that of larger society. In addition, another facet of this section includes contributions in the area of socialization processes that lead towards learning for social cohesion.
Personal and Small Group Level
Staub (1989) has postulated that “human beings have genetic potentials for both altruism and aggression, which evolve through socialization and experience” (p. 262). On the other hand, he also stresses that for social cohesion, to take place “highly committed people, guided by ideas [which are] connected to the welfare of individual human beings” (Staub, 1989, p. 261) are required. Thus, both altruism and aggression require some form of learning and commitment. Generally, our first ‘classroom’ is our home and our first ‘teachers’ are our primary care givers (Maccoby, 1992), however these are defined within our cultural context[5]. This being the case, the environment a child is raised in, as well as the role models and guides s/he has, have a profound effect later in life.
There have been numerous studies in the fields of cognitive and social psychology on the effects of multiple stimuli on human behavior – many of which correlate to the fostering of caring, non-violent, prosocial children and adults later in life. The outcomes of children’s personality, for example, are shaped by the constant interplay of temperament and the environment (Thomas et. all., 1970; van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994). The view that genetics plays an important role in determining aggressiveness or helpfulness is also widespread and believed to interplay with the environment (Collins et. all., 2000; DeKay & Buss, 1992). Another perspective explores the issue of child-mother (or mother figure) attachment and its effects on child development (Routhbaum et. all, 2000; Troy & Srouge, 1987; Bretherton, 1992; Staub, in progress). These perspectives and others lend a flavor of the breath and scope that research in psychology has taken in the last thirty years regarding issues contributing to personality building. By understanding breakdowns in child-caregiver relations, researchers are better able to identify patterns leading up to conflict situations, and conversely, make approximations as to the patterns that contribute to the formation of caring, helping and prosocial individuals.
While there are many studies
on the effects of specific or multiple impacts on infants and children, few are
the cases (I have come across) that address the issue of parenting and its
effects on children’s perception of prosocial behavior. Ethological research
(the study of animal behavior) with primates – human’s closest animal relation
– provides a venue for comparative studies on group stability, dependence, and
nurturing on well functioning, contributing members of a group later in life
(Mendoza, 1984). This, in turn, provides a solid basis for theorizing on the
effects of ‘parenting’ on the “capacity of the individual to maintain long-term
[trusting and helpful] associations with others” (Mendoza, 1984, p. 6).
However, this venue serves as a comparison rather than a case in and of itself.
But it does provide an important lesson for human based studies on social
cohesion; that the “most useful approach at the present time seems to be the
examination of social relationships”; these in turn, allow the “psychologist to
study the individuals which comprise the relationship” (Mendoza, 1984, p. 23).
The first relationship an infant encounters is with his/her primary care
giver(s); in much of the ‘West’ these are often the child’s mother and father.
Though cultural differences can vary tremendously by country and region, children
still have universal needs, yet how these are addressed is often cultural in
nature.
Staub affirms, “raising
caring, helpful, nonviolent children requires a combination or pattern of child
rearing practices, but its essential root is parental nurturance and affection”
(Staub, in progress, Ch. 5-p. 1). It is the sense of love and the assurance of
being cared for that lets the child know s/he is important, that people are
good and trustworthy and these lay the foundations for helping, and nurturing
kids to grow into helpful and nurturing adults.
Staub (in progress) attempts to spell out parenting contributions (see Table 3) that point in the direction of socializing children into prosocial behavior leading towards social cohesion. Parenting, in this table, is portrayed by a list of ‘qualities’ based on principles that parents attempt to instill in their children, followed by the action parents can take in order to implement their ‘quality’, and ultimately these actions have an effect on the child and their temperament towards helping or empathizing with others. Responsive parenting to the needs of an infant has many positive outcomes. When a caretaker’s responsiveness helps curbs a child’s needs, infants develop confidence in their potential to control what happens to them, and as this leads to greater satisfaction of their needs, they become more trusting of their environment. In addition, young children, who were held and tenderly loved early on, will seek less contact as they get older, but have satisfying and affectionate contact when they do. They are more cooperative and willing to lend others a hand when needed; in short, good parenting fosters loving, care giving and helpful individuals as children and as adults.
Table 3; Effects of ‘Good’ Parenting on
Children
|
PARENTING |
||
|
QUALITY · Affection · Helping · Warmth (character) · Coaching · Sensitivity (to needs of child) · Empathy · Structure & Constancy · Values & Rules · Flexibility |
ACTION Infancy: touching, embracing, physical contact. Adolescence: caring of welfare and sensitive to feelings. Attending to the needs of the child when child is in most need. Kindness and amiable character. Gently letting the child know how something can be done better. Facilitating effective action & valuing child’s efforts generates motivation. Nurturance, warmth and affection need to be responsive; noticing, understanding and mode of reacting to child’s needs. Listening, entering another’s experience, affirming simply by understanding. Children need structure and order in their lives as well as predictability and consistency. Values specify what we regard as preferable, desirable, good. Rules provide structure & guidance, these need to have meaning to children. Parents are less absolute about using and enforcing rules, they are sensitive to complexities and nuances of human experience & behavior, they look at reasons behind a child’s behavior. |
EFFECT (on children) Critical for the healthy growth of child and for the development of caring and helping. Makes people feel good and promotes helping with others. When adults act warmly with children they are more likely to be helpful with others & remember positive interactions. Leads to motivation for learning rather than for performance. Child feels secure, safe and free to explore alternatives. Empathy is healing in times of pain and anguish, and one who receives this is liable to help others. Children knowing what adults expect of them and how they will react, knowing what will happen in their lives. Explaining the value of rules has a value in itself, letting children know acting in some ways is better than others, tends to lead to more caring individuals. Children are ‘humanistic’ or caring with others. |
Source: Compiled from Staub (in progress), Chapters 7 and 8
Societal Level
The environment plays an important role in shaping societal tendencies towards helping behavior. In addition, humans also have a biological potential for altruistic actions, which are often adaptable. It is believed that the capacity for empathy that has evolved in humans is the basis for biologically based altruism (Hoffman, 1981). Such a hypothesis arises from the possibility of empathy coming from the evolved capacity of mammals to provide nurturing and care for their young. Animals capable of empathizing “are more likely to be sensitive to their offsprings’ needs and thus assure their survival; consequently the capacity for empathy will be enhanced through natural selection” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 38). Even though this argument is compelling, the evidence proving it is scarce, especially since humans have so many more variables at play than other primates (i.e. non-humans) and hence brings into question the sole contribution of genetics on the development of prosocial behavior. It is more likely that the environment, culture, and genes all contribute to the potential for altruistic behavior.
Groups are understood to be different than the sum of their parts, especially when it is unlikely a group will want to terminate its own existence without any resistance. Groups need to form trusting relationships between each other in order to pursue shared goals. Moreover, “the strengths of existing group identities and previous successes in achieving joint goals affect the extent to which inter group cooperation reduces conflict and result in positive ties” (Staub, 1989, p. 275). While social cohesion can be positive, it can just as likely be directed into damaging and unhelpful behavior. In either case social cohesion benefits members meeting the requirements of the specific group culture regardless of environmental differences. By identifying with an affiliated group, members often gain a revitalized interest in life and a sense of belonging to something of value (Kellerman, 1981). It can be a powerful force in the pursuit of goals and in the influence of the group on its members. The question arises, how do social units or groups become caring, connecting and non-aggressive?
Staub (1989) suggests a few stages along a continuum of social change that point in the direction of social cohesion. His focus is on changing cultures and the relations between societies. First, he speaks of crosscutting relations and superordinate goals. Crosscutting relations among sub-groups in society as well as between nations involves striving towards feelings of connectedness and an evolving appreciation of likeness (as opposed to difference that can lead to segregation and exclusion). Cooperative efforts to learn and work together on an equal footing leads to heightened prosocial behavior all around. Superordinate goals reflect common goals shared by individuals in both camps. By focusing on common goals there is a higher likelihood for successful outcomes, which, in turn, contribute to the nurturing of positive outlooks on the ‘other’, thereby resulting in greater trust and caring towards each other. These are attitudes that tend to strengthen intergroup cooperation, reduce conflict and lead to social cohesiveness. A second point has to do with learning by doing. Common every day acts can make profound contributions to the healing process, “helping others can lead to genuine concern and a feeling of responsibility for people” (Staub, 1989, p. 76). Often small acts of kindness can influence both individuals and groups alike, by nurturing one’s own where satisfaction born out of helping others results in a more caring self-image, which in turn perpetuates the cycle of caring. The Dutch, for example, as a whole are more prone to helping than most if not all other European nations; per capita they donate more funds to charitable ends than other cultures. Widespread practices such as these can have a deep and positive effect on children and youth who are socialized – by observing and doing – into practicing prosocial behavior.
Another point has to do with creating positive connections between groups. This is especially important when connections persist and spread to a minimum mass of people sharing their common attitudes and views. For connections to begin, real and meaningful contact is needed. There are multiple venues where this can take place, from education, cultural, and scientific exchanges between countries, for example. Joint projects, such as in manufacturing and technology, can reduce aggression and build on crosscutting cohesiveness. A final contributing factor is positive socialization. This can come from parenting, education, language and the media to name a few. Fostering empathy among children, providing at least minimum support for enabling social conditions and education, all play an important role. Language can have a lasting impact on our perceptions. Language shapes experience and those who destroy others often use euphemisms such as with the nuclear policies of the United States referring to ‘shields’, ‘deterrence’ and ‘defense’ – all words implying some kind of security that is non-existent (Staub, 1989). True portrayals of nuclear arms policy would most likely lead people to try to eliminate the threat and potential for nuclear war and arms proliferation. In the same vein, the media can have important consequences on the outcomes of mass feelings towards others, however the tendency has generally been more divisive than cohesive in nature.
Learning for Social Cohesion
While humans have the potential to be altruistic, we also have an equal potential to be aggressive, and striving towards social cohesion requires high motivation and commitment. Often these fair best when learned from an early age, however learning about prosocial behavior requires having adults who are aware of the matter and willing to invest time and energy into guiding and nurturing children and youth in a positive direction. In families and schools it is often the case that “children’s prosocial behaviors go unnoticed, while [parents or] teachers attend to less desirable behaviors” (Doescher & Sugawara, 1989, p. 213). Acts that aid and benefit other persons are central to a child’s social competence. It is a natural stage in development, children as young as two years old show signs of prosocial behavior with helping and comforting others. These are behaviors common to both girls and boys, but their prevalence increases when their helping actions are acknowledged and reinforced (Doescher & Sugawara, 1989). In this sense, “most human behavior is learned, molded and shaped by environmental events, especially rewards, punishments, and modeling” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 25).
The process that underlies the acquisition of a multiplicity of responses such as fear, social skills, aggression, and conformity can also be used to explain the development of moral standards and behavior. Ultimately, what humans inherit is the potential to learn a wide range of social behaviors and certain temperamental personality characteristics. This in turn depends on the social situation, which affects cognitive processing and learning. Learning has its roots in the way our socialization process takes shape. Initially, it is the family, other care givers, school and community that have significant leverage over the direction and focus of stimulating prosocial development. Fundamental mechanisms of socialization include: (1) “the modeling of helping, sharing, and comforting behaviors clearly and frequently”; (2) “reasoning in disciplinary contexts and verbalizing the benefits of prosocial action for others”; (3) “encouraging children to try to understand others’ feelings and to respond emotionally to others”; (4) “maintain high standards for children (including prosocial standards)”; and (5) “providing opportunities for their children to engage in prosocial activities (e.g., by assigning them responsibilities for others)” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 151).
In conclusion, the socialization mechanisms mentioned above are a step in the direction of learning for social cohesion – as these set the patterns early on for altruistic aimed learning throughout life. At its root, learning for social cohesion is applying the highest standards along a continuum of moral values in the everyday encounters guiding our lives while imbuing our actions with purity of motives. In other words, learning needs to be grounded in principles that can guide daily decision making and continually fine tune the direction and scope of one’s actions and their effects on others. So long as principles guide the learning process, even if these are counter to crosscutting social cohesiveness, the foundations are laid for empathy and helpfulness to grow even if these are confined to exclusive ‘in-groups’ – the patterns are in place for the evolving growth of prosocial awareness and action to expand into broader definitions of ‘in-groups’. Learning to learn is a simple concept; the challenge is to implement it.
Conclusion
Social cohesion is the key to intervening variables between social capital and social conflict. The stronger the links of social cohesion in society, the stronger will the reinforcing channels of socialization such as values and rules go into effect. Strong social cohesion[6] reduces the risk of social disorganization, fragmentation, and exclusion that may lead to aggression and violence.
Social conflict and social capital were logical themes to explore, as I sought to better understand the concept of social cohesion. These two frames marked a theoretical starting point. They elucidated on different angles and perceptions leading up to my ultimate objective of gathering insights regarding the contributing factors, processes and mechanisms for fostering and encouraging cohesiveness in society, in the family, and in the individual. Social conflict provided a means by which to understand processes in society that contribute to the break down of prosocial behavior, helping, and trust. Understanding the processes and factors contributing to social break-up provides a lens by which to comprehend often-irrational human behavior. Social capital, on the other hand, attempts to explain the interconnections between norms, values, and social relations, which constitute the adhesive force holding communities together. Social cohesion represents a broader umbrella term that incorporates the latter as elements in the building of communities and strengthening trust and reciprocity in conflict ridden areas, as well as providing a venue for addressing processes contributing to prosocial behavior and how these can be fostered in society.
Bibliography
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Berkman, L. F., and Kawachi, I. (2000) (Eds.). Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-56). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: In J. Bowlby and M. Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5): 759-775.
Bruntland Commission (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chomsky, N. (1993). Year 501: The conquest continues. Boston: South End Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94, 95-120.
Colleta, N. J., and Cullen, M. L. (2000). Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital: Lessons from Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and Somalia. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., and Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55(2): 218-232.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society (translated from German by author). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DeKay, W. T., and Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual difference, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(6):184-188.
Diamond, M., and Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Plume Book.
Doescher, S. M., and Sugawara, A. I. (1989). Encouraging prosocial behavior in young children. Childhood Education, 65(4): 213-216.
Eisenberg, N., and Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social values and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grootaert, C. (1998). Social capital: The missing link? Social capital initiative working Paper 3. Environmentally and socially sustainable development network. Washington D. C.: World Bank. Refer to www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/wrkrppr [March 9, 2001].
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism a part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121-137.
International Alert (2001). Women building peace: the international campaign to promote the role of women in peacebuilding. A Non-governmental organization based in London. Refer to: www.international-alert.org/women/home.html [May 11, 2001].
Kellerman, H. (1981). The deep structure of group cohesion. In H. Kellerman (Ed). Group cohesion: Theoretical and clinical perspectives. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Kotulak, R. (1996). Inside the brain: revolutionary discoveries of how the brain works. Kansas City, MO: Andrews and McMeel.
Lockwood, D. (1956). The blackcoated worker: A study in class consciousness. London: Allen & Unwin.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6): 1006-1017.
Marx, K. (1859/1951). A contribution to the critique of political economy. In Marx-Engals, Selected works, Vol. 1. Moscow, Soviet Union: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Mendoza, S. P. (1984). The psychology of social relationships. In P. R. Barchas and S. P. Mendoza (Eds.), Social cohesion: Essays toward a sociophysiological perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Mujeres Zapatistas (1993). Ley revolucionaria del mujeres del EZLN. Movimiento Zapatista. Refer to: www.ezln.org [March 12, 2000].
Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty. Policy research paper 2167. Poverty division, poverty reduction and economic management network. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Refer to www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/library/narayan [March 16, 2001]
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connell-Higgins, G. (1994). Resilient adults overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2000). Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept? In P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
Putman, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rex, J. (1981). Social conflict: a conceptual and theoretical analysis. London: Longman.
Robben, A. C., and Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2000). Cultures under siege: Collective violence and trauma (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Troy, M., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychology, 26(2): 166-172.
Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review 51(March): 1-17.
Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability as opportunity and the problem of social capital. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 3(2): 187-203.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. (in progress). A brighter future: Raising caring, nonviolent, optimally functioning children. (from UMass Course Psychology 753 – Personality and Social Development). School of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., and Birch, H. G. (1970). The origin of personality. Scientific American, 223(2): 102-109.
Troy, M., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychology, 26(2): 166-172.
UN (2000 October). UN security council debate on women, peace and security. Stronger decision-making role for women in peace processes is called for in day-long security council debate. Press Release SC/6937 – October 24. Refer to: www.un.org/News/Press/docs/ 2000/20001024.sc6937.doc.html [May 11, 2001].
Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (Eds.) Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215-252). Sociological Perspective on Development Series. Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
Van den Boom, D. C., and Hoeksma, J. B. (1994). The effect of irritability on mother-infant interaction. Developmental Psychology, 30(4): 581-590.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.