Learning for Social Cohesion
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.