Social cohesion and social engineering

Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer

Introduction

Lee Hockstader , a columnist of The Washington Post, recently ( July 1, 2024) wrote: “Denmark’s model: Send in the bulldozers.”

He explains: “One of the world’s richest, most placable nations, Denmark is halfway through a 12-year plan aimed at promoting social cohesion. 

The Danish program aims to change so-called parallel societies, social housing projects where more than half of tenants are “non-Western” and fare worse than average by at least two of four measures: income, employment, education and criminal convictions.

The goal is to overhaul those areas — by demolition, densification or gentrification — by 2030. In some places, that has meant privatizing and renovating apartment blocks that were subsidized for decades. But in others, working-class immigrants from Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere have been forcibly evicted, their buildings razed or gutted for development. Communities have been shattered, and many tenants dispersed.”

The article is interesting on different levels. Here is an attempt to analyze it.

Social Cohesion

Social cohesion refers to the bonds that bring society together, promoting cooperation and harmony among its members. It encompasses aspects like trust, a sense of belonging, and mutual respect among individuals and groups within a society. 

Why is social cohesion important?

Social cohesion is a cornerstone of a thriving society. It enhances social stability, economic prosperity, health, political participation, educational outcomes, and cultural enrichment. Social cohesion ensures that societies can collectively navigate challenges and seize opportunities by promoting mutual respect, trust, and a sense of belonging. Investing in social cohesion is thus essential for sustainable development and the well-being of all members of society

Social cohesion and democracy.

Social cohesion and democracy are interconnected. They support and sustain each other. Social cohesion enhances the functioning of democratic institutions and processes, while democracy provides a framework for promoting and maintaining social cohesion through inclusive, participatory, and equitable governance.

How different countries deal with Social cohesion is highly related to the cultural Worldviews.

A comparative Analysis. What are the main issues in dealing with social cohesion?

• Role of Government: In large power-distance cultures, like the Pyramid, the Solar System, and the Family system, the Government is generally a central figure in promoting social cohesion, whereas in the Contest, especially in the USA, community and civil society play larger roles. The Network and the WOM often rely on strong social policies to promote cohesion.
• Cultural Context: The belief in the importance of social cohesion varies significantly among countries. As an example, here is an overview of how social cohesion is perceived in some specific countries representing the Worldviews: the USA, France, Germany, Netherlands, China, Brazil, and Japan:

USA (Contest)

• Individualism vs. Collectivism: The USA has a strong cultural orientation towards individualism, emphasizing personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights.
• Emphasis is on community and civic engagement: While social cohesion is valued, it is often seen through the lens of community and civic engagement rather than as a collective societal goal.
• Diversity and Pluralism: Emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism, focusing on integrating various cultural identities into the broader society.

France (Solar System)

• Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: The French national motto underscores the importance of equality and fraternity, which relate closely to social cohesion.
• Secularism: Laïcité (secularism) is a core principle that aims to unify society by keeping religious practices out of public institutions.
• Social Welfare: Strong social welfare systems promote social cohesion by addressing inequalities and supporting all citizens.

Germany (Well Oiled Machine)

• Social Market Economy: Germany’s model combines free market capitalism with social policies that support social cohesion.
• Community and Order: Emphasis on social order, community participation, and collective well-being.
• Integration Policies: Focus on integrating immigrants and promoting social unity. This is under pressure because of the recent refugee influx.

Netherlands (Network)

• Polder Model: A consensus-based approach in politics and economics, emphasizing negotiation and cooperation.
• Social Tolerance: High levels of tolerance and social liberalism, with policies supporting inclusivity and social cohesion.
• Social Welfare: Comprehensive welfare state ensuring social security and reducing inequalities.

China (Family)

• Collectivism: Strong emphasis on collective harmony and social stability, deeply rooted in Confucian values.
• Government Role: The government plays a central role in promoting social cohesion through policies and propaganda.
• Economic Growth and Stability: Social cohesion is seen as essential for sustained economic growth and political stability.

Brazil (Pyramid)

• Diversity and Inequality: A highly diverse society with significant social and economic inequalities.
• Community and Solidarity: Strong community ties, especially in rural and lower-income areas, where social cohesion is often community-driven.
• Social Movements: Active social movements aiming to address inequalities and promote social justice and cohesion.

          Japan

• Homogeneity: A relatively homogeneous society with strong cultural norms promoting group harmony and social cohesion.
• Social Order and Discipline: Emphasis on social order, discipline, and mutual respect.

Immigration and Social cohesion

In many countries, immigration is seen as a threat to social cohesion.

It is interesting to look at Denmark 

In Denmark, the policy to disperse immigrants, as described above, is uncontroversial. Only two of the 12 political parties, have criticized it. It is widely accepted that migrants should embrace “Danish standards of conduct “. 

“Holes have been made in the map of Denmark,” a goernment report asserted in 2018, citing migrants who did not work, learn the language or “embrace Danish norms and values.” A reference is often made to parallel societies

Parallel societies

The `Danish traditionally value a high degree of social cohesion and integration. They assess, however, that parallel societies are developing.  Groups living separately from the mainstream society with their own distinct cultural, religious, or social norms. This can threaten cohesion. When groups do not integrate, it can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and divisions within the broader society.

The Danish government emphasizes the importance of integrating immigrants and minority groups into Danish society. Parallel societies can hinder this process by promoting segregation and reducing interactions between different cultural groups. They can also increase inequality by limiting access to education, employment, and social services for those within these communities, leading to a cycle of poverty and marginalization.

There is a concern that parallel societies may become isolated and potentially susceptible to radicalization or criminal activities. Lack of integration and interaction with broader society can create environments where extremist ideologies can flourish unchecked.

Parallel societies can impact the economy by creating enclaves with limited economic activity and higher dependency on social welfare systems. This can strain public resources and hinder overall economic progress.

The rise of right-wing and nationalist movements has amplified concerns about maintaining national identity and security, leading to stricter measures against forming parallel societies.

The Danish effort can be seen as an example of social engineering, defined broadly as using strategies to influence or change societal behaviors and attitudes.

How different countries look at social engineering again depends on their preferred value system. In short, their culture. Here is a look at some of these differences:

Views on Social Engineering

Contest (example, the USA)

• Individualism: The U.S. is highly individualistic, which can lead to skepticism about social engineering efforts, particularly those perceived as government overreach.
• Libertarian Values: Libertarians strongly emphasize personal freedom and limited government intervention, which influences public attitudes toward social engineering policies.

Network (Scandinavia and The Netherlands)

• Focus on equity: Many European countries, particularly in Scandinavia, embrace social democratic values, supporting welfare states and policies aimed at reducing inequality.
• Shared Responsibility: Social engineering efforts aimed at promoting social welfare and environmental sustainability are generally more accepted.
• Consensus: Social engineering is only acceptable if there is consensus about the need for society. 

Family (China)

• Collectivism: The collective good is often prioritized over individual rights, which aligns with the government’s extensive social engineering efforts.
• State Control: The Chinese government actively engages in social engineering through policies aimed at population control (e.g., one-child policy) and social harmony.
• Confucian Influence: The emphasis on order, hierarchy, and societal harmony in Confucianism supports accepting social engineering as a means to maintain stability.

  Japan

• Social Harmony: Japanese culture values social harmony and conformity, which can facilitate the acceptance of social engineering to maintain societal norms.
• Government Programs: A historical precedent exists for government-led social engineering, such as post-WWII reconstruction and modernization efforts.
• Aging Population: Current social engineering efforts focus on addressing demographic challenges, such as an aging population and declining birth rates.

Pyramid (Brazil)

• Social Inequality: Social engineering efforts often target reducing inequality and improving social services.
• Political Polarization: Attitudes toward social engineering are influenced by political polarization, with left-leaning groups typically more supportive of state intervention.

Solar System (France)

• Centralization: France has a long tradition of centralized government dating back to the absolutist monarchy and later reinforced by the Napoleonic era. This centralization has led to a top-down approach in policy-making, including social engineering.
• Secularism (Laïcité): The French principle of secularism strongly influences its social policies, emphasizing the separation of religion from public life and education.
• Welfare State: France has a comprehensive welfare state with extensive social security systems, including healthcare, pensions, and unemployment benefits, reflecting a commitment to social equality.
• Education and Integration: The French education system emphasizes assimilation, promoting a unified national identity. Policies often aim at integrating diverse populations into the French culture and language.

Well Oiled Machine (Germany)

• Federalism: Germany’s federal structure, with significant powers vested in the Länder (states), results in a more decentralized approach to social policy.
• Reunification: Post-WWII reconstruction and the reunification of East and West Germany have significantly influenced German social policies, promoting unity and economic stability.
• Social Market Economy: Germany’s social market economy combines free-market capitalism with policies that ensure fair wealth distribution and social security. 
• Vocational Training: Germany’s dual vocational training system is a key element of its approach to social engineering, emphasizing the link between education and employment.
• Labor Market Flexibility: Reforms such as the Hartz reforms have aimed to make the labor market more flexible and reduce unemployment, though these have been controversial.
• immigration and Integration: Germany’s approach to immigration has evolved, particularly with the 2015 refugee crisis. Policies have increasingly focused on integration, though challenges remain, especially regarding cultural integration and social cohesion.

          

Comparative Insights

• Centralization vs. Decentralization: The Solar system, Pyramid, Family system, and Japan’s centralized approach contrast strongly with the Content, WOM, and Network approach impacting how social policies are formulated and implemented.
• Economic Models: The Contest liberal market system, the Network welfare state, the WOM social market economy, and the Chinese Centralized economy represent different methods of achieving social security and economic stability.
• Integration Policies: Many countries face challenges with immigration and integration, but their approaches differ. For example, France emphasizes assimilation into a unified national identity, while Germany focuses on integrating immigrants into its social market economy.