NationStates Jolt Archive

Social cohesion; a buzzword akin to sustainability, corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, etc.

Those of you familiar with the concept, is it important? Is it desireable? Or is the lack of it desireable, because tension is important, to maintain a dynamic society?

If I had to park my car in Paris, I'd opt for more social cohesion.

I don't honestly care about 'social cohesion' - I care about the police arresting criminals, which would have solved the problems in Paris much quicker than 'social cohesion'

If I had to park my car in Paris, I'd opt for more social cohesion.

Also if you had to wait for a hurricane to pass in New Orleans.

I don't honestly care about 'social cohesion' - I care about the police arresting criminals, which would have solved the problems in Paris much quicker than 'social cohesion'

Er, social cohesion would've prevented those problems from happening in the first place.

I don't honestly care about 'social cohesion' - I care about the police arresting criminals, which would have solved the problems in Paris much quicker than 'social cohesion'

I believe the idea is that social cohesion is supposed to be more like, proactive/preventative. Like the difference btween the pill and abortion.

I believe the idea is that social cohesion is supposed to be more like, proactive/preventative. Like the difference btween the pill and abortion.

Remember that some people don't possess a little thing we call "logic".

Remember that some people don't possess a little thing we call "logic".

There is logic, and then there is logic. Then again there is logic.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody´s got one. (who said that?)

There is logic, and then there is logic. Then again there is logic.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody´s got one. (who said that?)

Some select people might inexplicably be missing their respective assholes, thus explaining their lack of logic.

Well, anyways, what is the logic in not being interested in more SC? Because it is an Evil Communist Idea aimed at Taking Away Freedom?


No, really, if it is agreed to be a good thing on a national level, why not on the international level?

I don't honestly care about 'social cohesion' - I care about the police arresting criminals, which would have solved the problems in Paris much quicker than 'social cohesion'It's kind of funny though.. It seems that countries that enjoy a high degree of social equality (skrew buzz-words), also enjoy both happier populations & more stable economies.

Do you think there might possibly be some sort of connection there?

It's kind of funny though.. It seems that countries that enjoy a high degree of social equality (skrew buzz-words), also enjoy both happier populations & more stable economies.

Do you think there might possibly be some sort of connection there?

Possibly. Got any theories?:confused:

Possibly. Got any theories?:confused:
I think it was a rhetorical question ;)

But yeah, it seems quite marxist in a way. Pulling apart divisions in society to create a more equal society where people are more content. Consider the West, the dominant race/class are the male caucasians who tend to earn more and be treated with more respect than their respective counterparts of different races and females of all races.

*wonders how many americans he put off the idea of social cohesion just by mentioning marx*

social cohesion = social equality????

mmm, no. I think it is not the same. I am even sure enough not to bother looking it up. So, no Marx there you commie swinepigdog! Spew your propaganda elsewhere.;)

Well they were his words not mine "...social equality (skrew buzz-words)" He was using social equality to mean social cohesion.

But cohesion does contain a fair amount of ideas about how to achieve cohesion via equality, and equality of representation. Such as: equal presentation in police forces; equal presentation in government (local and central); equal access to state provisions (education, welfare, etc); maybe extra provisions for or targeting provisions at disadvantaged areas; and others I can't think of right now... *ahem*

However, you're right social cohesion just about the above, it also concentrates on building community relations via community activities.

(swinepigdog - heh... I guess that was meant to be ironic *laughs a little more*... bleh, Marxism is alright, but Marxists? Don't get me started)

...... Such as: equal presentation in police forces; equal presentation in government (local and central); equal access to state provisions (education, welfare, etc); maybe extra provisions for or targeting provisions at disadvantaged areas; and others I can't think of right now... *ahem*

However, you're right social cohesion just about the above, it also concentrates on building community relations via community activities.


I see those somewhat more as means to an end. But, to me it seems so very obvious that the more cohesive a society is (whatever that precisely means), the better it will fare. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that there has been debate on whether to use SC somehow to measure how successful a country is, instead of focusing on GDP. Social wealth or something. The idea being that a country with high GDP, but full of marginalized, disenfranchized, etc. people is not going to last long.

Example: Country X utilizes slave labour, makes huge profits, thus high GDP. I know I am not qualified to discuss this but....

Well, is GDP a good standard to measure the success of a country? (success at what exactly? What is a country for anyway?)

PS. Yes I am sober :)

I see those somewhat more as means to an end. But, to me it seems so very obvious that the more cohesive a society is (whatever that precisely means), the better it will fare. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that there has been debate on whether to use SC somehow to measure how successful a country is, instead of focusing on GDP. Social wealth or something. The idea being that a country with high GDP, but full of marginalized, disenfranchized, etc. people is not going to last long.

Example: Country X utilizes slave labour, makes huge profits, thus high GDP. I know I am not qualified to discuss this but....

Well, is GDP a good standard to measure the success of a country? (success at what exactly? What is a country for anyway?)

PS. Yes I am sober :)Essentially I agree with you... except for the bit about the claim about your soberness. That's obviously untrue, all the clear hallmarks are there. Yes...

But let me rephrase one of the things you said as how I understood it.
"I'm not too sure what social cohesion is, but if a country has it then it will definately fare better."

Finally you can answer your own rhetorical questions.

Enough procrastination on my part. I have to get an essay on "Does Marxism offer an accurate analysis of the contemporary British state?" for Monday. I understand the theory, I just have no idea how to relate to the contemporary British state.

Can we define what is meant by "social cohesion" here? Sounds like a short step away from ethnocentrism to me and 'enforcing' seems like the very thing that would cause social conflict and reactionism. I may very well be completely off base here so if someone could elaborate it would be sweet.

Yes it was a rethorical question, and yes I said skrew buzz-words. I see no difference between the two words, so I have no compelling reason to ammend my vocabulary. It's of course entirely possible that I'm just an ignorant bastard, but if that's the case, I'd appreciate if someone would bother telling me what exactly the difference is.
Well, is GDP a good standard to measure the success of a country? (success at what exactly? What is a country for anyway?)

PS. Yes I am sober :)
GDP is a good way to measure a country because it says something about the general economy. Your method wouldn't say anything about the economy, but would speak volumes about how pleasant life is for the average citizen. However, as it is, that's not a really a concern.

I haven't the faintest idea what countries & nationalities are for, but I suspect they're nice tools for deviding people instead of unifying them. After all, unified people working towards common goals like human rights & a higher standard of living, probably would result in a total breakdown of our current economy - and nobody important is interested in that.

...

But let me rephrase one of the things you said as how I understood it.
"I'm not too sure what social cohesion is, but if a country has it then it will definately fare better."

Social cohesion is more often described as a process or plan of procedure, rather than a condition. Social cohesion is sharing values and a commitment to a community to retain social order. As a concept it refers to how to respond to fears and uncertainty in unstable economic and challenging social times when social positions are shifting. The stress of social cohesion is placed on resolving conflicts through democracy and institutional processes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cohesion)

One way of describing it. I was more like thinking about the condition, rather than the process, but...

Can we define what is meant by "social cohesion" here? Sounds like a short step away from ethnocentrism to me and 'enforcing' seems like the very thing that would cause social conflict and reactionism. I may very well be completely off base here so if someone could elaborate it would be sweet.

No, social cohesion and ethnocentrism aren't anywhere near the same things. Social Cohesion is (roughly) the degree to which individual elements within society collaborate for collective good. Ethnocentrism is the belief in the uniform superiority of a (usually your own) culture compared with others without respect for a common criterion of comparison. So while saying that the U.S. has a higher standard of living than Botswana is not an ethnocentric statement, saying that Americans are better than Botswanans is.

Yes it was a rethorical question, and yes I said skrew buzz-words. I see no difference between the two words, so I have no compelling reason to ammend my vocabulary. It's of course entirely possible that I'm just an ignorant bastard, but if that's the case, I'd appreciate if someone would bother telling me what exactly the difference is.

GDP is a good way to measure a country because it says something about the general economy. Your method wouldn't say anything about the economy, but would speak volumes about how pleasant life is for the average citizen. However, as it is, that's not a really a concern.

I haven't the faintest idea what countries & nationalities are for, but I suspect they're nice tools for deviding people instead of unifying them. After all, unified people working towards common goals like human rights & a higher standard of living, probably would result in a total breakdown of our current economy - and nobody important is interested in that.

1 nope, don't know the difference. maybe there is none
2 GDP doesn´t really say much about the economy.
3 If someone could explain the point of the nationstate please? Or is it too much of a rhetorical question?

No, social cohesion and ethnocentrism aren't anywhere near the same things. Social Cohesion is (roughly) the degree to which individual elements within society collaborate for collective good. Ethnocentrism is the belief in the uniform superiority of a (usually your own) culture compared with others without respect for a common criterion of comparison. So while saying that the U.S. has a higher standard of living than Botswana is not an ethnocentric statement, saying that Americans are better than Botswanans is.

Are we talking about government induced social cohesion, or voluntary social cohesion? If you are talking about voluntary efforts to "collaborate for the collective good" then that is one thing. However, if you are considering government efforts to achieve social cohesion it is a very slippery slope. I believe in equal opportunities for everyone, but government involvement can often times have adverse effects on society as a whole because of its selectiveness (not to mention the self-interest behind all of their actions).

I believe Milton Friedman states it best: "[The government] substitute(s) the values of outsiders for the values of participants; either some telling others what is good for them, or the government taking from some to benefit others."

This is one of the triumphs of individualism: it's ability to be diverse and representative of the population.

.... However, if you are considering government efforts to achieve social cohesion it is a very slippery slope....
All slopes are slippery. Unrestrained individualism is no less so.

All slopes are slippery. Unrestrained individualism is no less so.

Certainly. I maintain that individualism trumps collectivism, not that individualism is perfect.

Certainly. I maintain that individualism trumps collectivism, not that individualism is perfect.
I find it fairly amusing that we essentially value the same things, yet end up with completely opposing conclusions.

Anyway, after a bit of searching the interwebnet, I've realized what the difference between the two terms (social equality/social cohersion) is; nothing.

Interestingly, I'm also getting the impression that the left & right disagrees very much on what these two terms cover.

GDP does say a lot about an economy. Sure, the GDP of Timbuktu from 2004 wouldn't make much sense on it's own, but generally numbers aren't really used that way.

I still draw a blank on the purpose of nations. I can only speculate that they're useful for leeching off eachother, which is what capitalism is basically about.. But outside of that, well... I don't know. Perhaps we just have them because people want them or never really thought about them?

.........
I still draw a blank on the purpose of nations. I can only speculate that they're useful for leeching off eachother, which is what capitalism is basically about.. But outside of that, well... I don't know. Perhaps we just have them because people want them or never really thought about them?

The very idea of a nation is relatively new. The idea of a country, with fixed physical borders is even newer.

When the Ottoman Empire came to an end, new borders were drawn, states created and thrones given to those favourable to those drawing the borders. Those states were arranged with the aim of preventing the rise of another such empire. So, your speculation is correct so far. If I am. As for what the purpose really is...:confused:

It is not very efficient, to say the least.

I find it fairly amusing that we essentially value the same things, yet end up with completely opposing conclusions.


I think that's what's ironic about politics. My disagreement is more fundamentally how one achieves the "best" system.

My conclusion is based on the belief that individuals know what is best for them if they are given the maximum political and civil freedoms, than if they were to be treated by a highly subjective, corrupt, coercive government structure and treated as a group. I mean, seriously. Do you like to be grouped into a tax bracket/social level based soley on how much money you make. Why should one who earns more money be taxed more? Why should the government have the ability to take from the products of my labor anyway? We take it for granted that a). the government is entitled to forcibly take from my labor and possessions and b). the government is responsible for redistribution of wealth--both of which are modern creations as a result of the new deal and not a fundamentally Consitutional claim. In fact it is unconstutional to tax income--the government claims it isn't an income tax really isn't a tax on income, but rather a tax that conveniently is equivalent to one's income.

Anyway, after a bit of searching the interwebnet, I've realized what the difference between the two terms (social equality/social cohersion) is; nothing.

Indeed. I find no difference between the two terms whatsoever. If there is any, they are used commonly interchangeably.

I still draw a blank on the purpose of nations. I can only speculate that they're useful for leeching off eachother, which is what capitalism is basically about.. But outside of that, well... I don't know. Perhaps we just have them because people want them or never really thought about them?

Actually, capitalism does not need a nation in order to function. According to many, pure capitalism is found in an anarchist society (anarcho-capitalism). Anarachists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman think capitalism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive and are the purest forms of each other.

I think that's what's ironic about politics. My disagreement is more fundamentally how one achieves the "best" system.

My conclusion is based on the belief that individuals know what is best for them if they are given the maximum political and civil freedoms, than if they were to be treated by a highly subjective, corrupt, coercive government structure and treated as a group.As is mine.I mean, seriously. Do you like to be grouped into a tax bracket/social level based soley on how much money you make. Why should one who earns more money be taxed more?Again, we completely agree.Why should the government have the ability to take from the products of my labor anyway? We take it for granted that a). the government is entitled to forcibly take from my labor and possessionsFunny, considering part of the reason for having a government is to uphold property laws.and b). the government is responsible for redistribution of wealth--both of which are modern creations as a result of the new deal and not a fundamentally Consitutional claim. In fact it is unconstutional to tax income--the government claims it isn't an income tax really isn't a tax on income, but rather a tax that conveniently is equivalent to one's income. I can't justify the concept of government any more than I can justify it stealing from you & me.
Like I said, it's amusing how the two of us value the same things, yet end up with completely opposing ideas.Indeed. I find no difference between the two terms whatsoever. If there is any, they are used commonly interchangeably. I think the real difference is that the leftwing uses SE while the right uses SC - and try to clubber eachother with those terms.Actually, capitalism does not need a nation in order to function. According to many, pure capitalism is found in an anarchist society (anarcho-capitalism). Anarachists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman think capitalism and anarchism are not mutually exclusive and are the purest forms of each other.I know. I suppose I should have said our current corporatist economy. It does depend on the concept of nations to a large extent. Dissolving soverign nations would prolly trash the global economy, or at the very least lead to serious change. Neither appears to be very desirable to the elite.

Incidentially, while I find anachro-capitalism fascinating, I can't see how it can work for more than a few years at the most. It seems to be another one of those "looks good on paper" ideas.
- I'm somewhat of an anarchist, by the way, and the only economic model I can imagine working is participatory economics. But that's entirely off-topic.