Community Cohesion or Social cohesion is an ideal state in which all citizens of a community/society abide by a common code of law, respect each other’s rights and morals, and work together to maintain social order. The European Committee for Social Cohesion defines community cohesion as the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding polarization. A cohesive society is a mutually supportive community of free individuals pursuing these common goals by democratic means” (Council of Europe, 1).
A cohesive community exhibits some basic features. Firstly, such a community has a common aspiration that is shared by all its citizens. As a result, each member feels equally important and valued. Secondly, despite the common vision, a cohesive community continues to respect the unique character of all sub-communities and individual members. Thirdly, equal opportunities are provided to everybody in a cohesive community. Lastly, it should be mentioned that strong interpersonal bonds are formed in social settings such as neighborhoods, schools, colleges and offices even between individuals with dissimilar backgrounds (Brundage 145-7).
In order to ensure the success of Community Cohesion, the legal body must be able to effectively carry out a number of functions. For instance, it must be able to set certain standards of behavior that are acceptable to all members of the community. Additionally, it will have to decide upon appropriate punishments for those who deviate from these standards. Despite its duty to punish guilty parties, it must also honor and defend basic human rights such as ‘the presumption of innocence’. Alongside these responsibilities, it must also assist in the organized shift from one generation to the next (Prawer, 221-5).
How socially cohesive a society or community is can determine how well it deals with emergency situations. In other words, the degree of community cohesiveness is closely related to conflict resolution. Sociologists explain that if a group is closely bonded, they will agree upon strategies to deal with crisis situations easily. This cohesiveness comes in handy not just during crises but also in community development, health and education initiatives, and anti-racism efforts (Dollard, 116-7).
Despite the nobleness associated with the concept of ‘Community Cohesion’, specialists point out that its philanthropic exterior hides a number of grey areas. A society is a heterogeneous body and therefore consists of varied people with diverse backgrounds, ambitions, religious beliefs, values, and intentions. As a result, the specialists argue that no community or society can truly have the ‘same aspirations’. When deciding about goals or priorities for such a group, certain individuals naturally have prevalence over others. Hence, the community cohesive model actually echoes the same majority rule that it tries to escape. So if you are an Indian living in Britain, the ‘common aspirations’ that you will have to follow are most likely British since the majority of people deciding upon them are likely to be locals.
It is no wonder that a recent study found immigrants from East European countries, such as Albania, Bulgaria, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro and Ukraine living in London, Brighton and Hove to be affecting the community cohesion of the area. The study also revealed that long-term residents who have been living in Britain and have therefore conformed to the needs and expectations of the country are more cohesive than those who have just arrived and are yet to conform (Goddard 433-5).
Recently, David Cameron, the Conservative Leader, addressed the issue of British policies attempting to coerce followers of Islam into conforming to British norms. He expressed concern about this approach and stated that a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the significant alienation and division present in our country today. (Source: The Muslim News, 1)
Many people believe that attempts at social cohesion are actually disguised attempts to force other communities to conform to what is considered more desirable for Britain. As Cameron points out, Blair’s community cohesion policies have made a mess of several pressing issues. The first of these is the concept of Community Cohesion itself; the second is the serious concern about the increasing rate of terrorism in the world, and the third is about the integration of British Muslims.” “Promoting community cohesion,” said Cameron, “should be part of our response to terrorism – but cohesion isn’t just about terrorism, and it certainly isn’t just about Muslims.” (The Muslim News, 1)
Blair’s misguided policies are only the tip of the iceberg. Community-based attempts at social cohesion function in much the same way and prioritize a number of issues in an almost haphazard manner. Of course, apart from the structural flaws in such attempts, there is also the obvious concern about majority rule, which we briefly touched upon in the above section (Powell, 49-53).
A recent study conducted by The Institute for Public Policy Research has revealed some truths about present-day Britain. The first of these concerns the fact that Britain’s wealthiest 10% have gotten richer by a whopping 7% in just 10 years! It is true; IPPR confirms that the amount of wealth held by the richest British citizens has jumped from 47% to a neat 54% between 1997 and 2007. IPPR Director Nick Pearce said that the data showed there was still abundant room for improvement. He emphasized that the fact that only the richest 10% were getting richer demonstrated an immediate need for what he termed a radical agenda.” Only “radical social reform” can hope to reduce the yawning economic disparity prevalent in today’s country, he said, adding that the next five years would be particularly “critical.” The reports also revealed that apart from the gap between rich and poor, there has been a considerable increase in childless adults living below poverty level over the past ten years (Knott,188-9).
Comparatively, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Healey, is far less cynical about things. Healey is quite sure that the situation of economic disparity is reparable. It’s hardly achievable in the short term,” he said confidently. “That’s why we have a long program for the future. It’s a long-term generational political challenge.” (Dos, 47-48) Of course, no one bothered to ask how long this “long term” really lasted.
Another study conducted by the Office for National Statistics indicates that there is a concentration of people at lower levels of weekly earnings. The earnings of an entire family in the bottom 10% amount to a mere £164 (or less) per week, whereas households in the top 10% earn at least a neat £658 per week, if not more. It was found that an estimated 1.6 million people in the country were part of households earning over £1000 per week! (Tyerman, 233-37)
As expected, the income distribution of the country is thoroughly lopsided. A study conducted by the Office for National Statistics in 2002/03 revealed that the top 10% of the population pocketed more than a quarter of the nation’s total income. The same study showed that the top 30% took home just a little over half of the country’s total income (Cunningham, 24-5).
The economic disparity within the population is reflected in the inequalities in health and social conditions. A study showed that life expectancy is heavily dependent on occupation. For example, between 1997-98, men in professional groups lived an average of 7.4 years longer than those classified as unskilled manual workers. Similarly, professional women lived at least 5.7 years longer than their unskilled counterparts (Border, 375).
Life expectancy is significantly affected by your place of residence. For instance, if you were a man residing in Glasgow city between 1999 and 2001, your life expectancy would be ten years less than someone living in North Dorset during the same period.
Regarding people’s use of technology, which is a definite reflection of their living standards, the statistics show that in 2000-2002, 86% of the top 10% of the population had access to personal computers and 79% even had an Internet connection. In contrast, only 15% of the lowest income group had home computers and a mere 10% had an Internet connection (Kumar, 334).
A monologue about inequalities should be followed by an analysis of the reasons contributing to the various discrepancies in Britain. For instance, there is an unequal distribution of wealth, but why does it exist? The answer is not simple or concise enough to fit into this article, but perhaps it has much to do with the nation’s and society’s perception of development.” Every community desires development and elects governments who promise to fulfill those desires. If the government (who in many ways reflects the community’s own ambitions) does not consider poverty elimination a priority for the country and instead decides to tackle health concerns or even child abuse first, economic inequality will increase unchecked. Like Pearce said above, the Labour party did not prioritize ending economic disparity or reducing poverty as one of its primary objectives. Thus, differences between social strata only widened over time (Drake 153-55).
The issue of income inequality in Britain is intricately entwined with other disparities, such as unequal living standards and health conditions. For instance, living in less prosperous areas like Glasgow means living 10 years less than someone residing in a comparatively affluent setting like North Dorset. Additionally, being skilled and better paid often translates to better health outcomes. The problem at hand is complex and bewildering – how to distribute national income equally among citizens? Some people earn more than others due to factors such as education or skill level, while others inherit wealth. To address this issue, the government can improve educational standards or levy greater taxes on inherited treasures for greater social equality. Ultimately, the options are open for addressing this multifaceted problem.
Formulating valid theories can help us as a community to increase and speed up our level of development in every possible field. It provides us with the tremendous power required to make new discoveries and improve our present efforts, ensuring greater results. As Peter Drucker rightly put it, There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Jacobs, 1). A good theory can help us determine what needs to be done and how it should be done.
Social development heavily relies on valid theory. Without it, development becomes a vague process of trial and error, resulting in thousands of failures and imbalanced growth. The increasing gap between the rich and poor, environmental depletion, and rising crime rates in developed countries like Britain indicate that we are recklessly pursuing development without adequate planning. Only significant advances in development theory can increase our rate of social success. A sound theoretical structure is necessary to provide direction for addressing various social inadequacies effectively. (Manning, 279)
In conclusion, it should be mentioned that the structure of a community relies heavily on its members’ ability to learn and apply social theories to their lives. Only by learning and applying these theories appropriately can individuals, as well as the community as a whole, hope to achieve their personal and communal aspirations. Social theory is essential in helping people cope with external threats or meet the demands of various social or physical conditions (Gervers, 17-22). Therefore, to ensure systematic and effective functioning of our community, we must turn to social theories for guidance.
Reference:
Bell, L. Man, Society and Management Techniques. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006. Pages 271-273.
Border, S. (2004). Human Resource Strategies: Games People Play. Remote Publishing Trust, 375 pp.
Brundage, C. (2000). Community Law and the Crusaders of Community. HBT Publishers Pvt. Ltd., pp. 145-147.
The Council of Europe is an international organization that aims to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Its background and mission can be found on its official website coe.int. The information was last updated in 2005 and retrieved on July 7th, 2007 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/SocialCohesionDev/Forum/2005background_en.asp
Cunningham, S.A. (2006). Introduction to Sociology. DLTT Publications Ltd. pp 24-25.
Dos, M. (2007). Advent of Motivation. Alliance Publications, pp. 47-48.
Dollard, John. Zenith and Zero Point. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004. Pages 116-117.
Drake, S. (2006). Evaluation of Techniques in Community Migration. ABP Ltd. pp 153-55.
Goddard, J. Management: Making the Most Out of It. Howard & Price, 2006, pp. 433-435.
Gervers, V. Vision of UK. HBT Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2000, pp. 17-22.
Jacobs, Garry, and Asoka N presented VISION 2020: Knowledge for Development” to the Planning Commission on August 8, 2000. The information was retrieved on July 7, 2007 from http://www.icpd.org/development_strategies/Knowledge%20for%20Development.htm.
Knott, P. Development of Sociology as a Science” (Dasgupta & Chatterjee 2007), pp. 188-189.
Kumar, H. Win Some, Lose None. HBT & Brooks Ltd., 2005. 334 pages.
Manning, C. S. (2004). Principals and Practices: Sociology Today. National Book Trust, 279 pages.
Powell, M. Anatomy of a Religion. ABP Ltd, 2001, pp. 49-53.
Prawer, H. A.: The Communal Kingdom. Allied Publishers, 2004, pp. 221-225.
The Muslim News is a source for news and views of Muslims in the United Kingdom, with a focus on communicating community cohesion. This particular issue, number 214, was published on Friday 23 February 2007 and can be retrieved from http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2840.
Tyerman, J. (2001). Invention of Brotherhood. Allied Publications, pp. 233-37.
