Download (2010). Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood

SUN Action 2 – SUN Platform & SUN Action 6
Theory Working Paper
Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban
Neighbourhood
Author: Carijn Beumer
June 2010
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
2nd
SUN colloquium
Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood
Carijn Beumer
1. Introduction
1.1 Urban Society and the Changing World
Cities are large and dense forms of human settlement within which a wide range of
activities take place. The industrial revolution enhanced the development of cities in
an unprecedented way. Together with the changing physical environment, the fabric
of social life changed profoundly. The first sociologists, such as Ferdinand Tönnies
and Georg Simmel, studying the effect of urbanization on social structures were
particularly concerned about the decline of social bonds and solidarity (Giddens,
2009). Tönnies observed a gradual loss of traditional community bonds based on
personal and long-lasting relationships between neighbours and friends and a clear
understanding of each other’s position in society (Giddens, 2009, p.8). These type of
bonds where replaced by ‘associational bonds’ which were relatively short lived and
instrumental in character. Gemeinschaft turned into Gesellschaft. Society became
more individualistic. Cities became places full of strangers.
In the 20th Century cities gradually turned from industry into centres of commerce and
service. This resulted in a change of the cohesion of the formerly stronger bonded
neighbourhood communities gathered around the local industries. Relations became
more detached from the local neighbourhood area. Globalization processes and the
rise of information technology even deterritorialized social relations in an unparalleled
way (Scholte, 2002; CoE, 2008). Many social relations now take place outside
neighbourhood communities. Virtual social networks seem to be “further eroding the
residual bonds of spatial proximity and kinship (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).” Some
scholars ask the question: “Does neighbourhood still matter in a globalised world
(Kearns & Parkinson, 2001)?”
We think that neighbourhoods and the societal structures they may entail do matter,
as well geographically, as socially and politically. The challenges neighbourhoods
represent though, might be in the process of change. In the eyes of Castells and
other authors, globalization processes indeed lead to a loss of social cohesion and
this involves greater societal risks and challenges (Giddens, 2009). In the context of
European social cohesion, the Council of Europe discusses them in their 2008 report
(CoE, 2008). Next to the challenges brought about by globalization processes,
demographic changes are discussed such as the changing family and parenthood
patterns and the ‘double role of women’. Integration and cultural diversity form
another main challenge. Different groups are driven towards “opposite poles in terms
of income, assets and lifestyles (Forrest & Kearns, 2001, p.2128). Together with
increasing multiculturalism the risk of small ‘clashes of civilizations’ (NederveenSUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
Pieterse, 2004) within national or neighbourhood settings increases, as can be seen
for example in the problems in Culemborg in the Netherlands in 2009, where groups
of Dutch Indonesians and Dutch Moroccan youngsters territorized each other. Such
events again stimulate the rise of populist political sentiments and further
polarizations, and in the worst case exclusions, of societal groups. Power shifts
among levels and actors enhance the risk of declining trust and participation in the
political system. Privatization processes add risks to socio-economic and health
situations, such as rising inequality and inadequate access to health care (CoE,
2008).
In order to guide the complex multicultural European society, the Council of Europe
promotes a strategy to enhance social cohesion throughout Europe in the 21st
century. The last decade, social cohesion has been a guiding principle to achieve
social goals in Europe and the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 highlighted the importance of
social cohesion for the development of a society based on knowledge and
employment (CoE, 2008).
“Neighbourhoods provide a useful scale for studying the social relations of ‘everyday
life-worlds’ (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001). Globalization, increasing cultural diversity and
largely individualist societies seem to impact social cohesion on the urban
neighbourhood level profoundly nowadays. But, are we indeed suffering from a crisis
in social cohesion (Forrest & Kearns, 2001)? Don’t we overestimate the ‘negative’
impacts these developments have on human relations? Are shared identities really
eroding, as Castells argues (Castells, 1997)? What are the identities, virtues and
values related to the new post-modern social networks? How can they contribute to
the development of social capital, economy and the natural environment on the
spatial neighbourhood level? What are the opportunities these new social-network
structures provide for sustainable urban development? And, another question: are
our social relations indeed as deterritorialized as represented in theories by many
thinkers and scholars (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). What is the ‘real material’ for
sustainable urban neighbourhood project partners to work with?
1.2. The policy Interest of Neighbourhoods
A reason why neighbourhoods are of policy interest nowadays, is the revival of the
interest in ideas as ‘local community’ as a means to tackle area deprivation and
social exclusion (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). The increasing interest in bottom up
approaches, and transition processes as the ‘third way’ between incrementalism and
strict planning are as well part of the vocabulary of the sustainable development and
integrated assessment community (Loorbach, 2002; Grosskurth, 2009).
Another reason is the connection between human capital and economic growth,
because economic prosperity depends upon healthy social structures. As Meegan
And Mitchell (2001) phrase it: “it is necessary to (re-)build social capital in
‘marginalised communities’ and for reasons not simply of social cohesion but also of
economic competitiveness (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001). “ Problems related to these
connected areas are best visible in neighbourhood areas.
A third reason is the increasing recognition that social, economic and environmental
macro-level trends are influenced my micro-level developments.” Many of the
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
structural causes of disadvantage can be found in local level situations. Macro-level
solutions are therefore significantly more difficult to find (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001).
1.3. Community or Geography?
Local space also plays an important role in the governance of local social cohesion:
accessible public and private services, the quality and availability of infrastructure;
mental, physical, technological or ecological barriers (water, woods, hills, fences,
traffic, infrastructural design) (Latour, 1988); the state of property and the quality of
the ecological environment affect the ‘image’ of the people living in a certain place
(Meegan & Mitchell, 2001; Cranz & Boland, 2004). Commodification of space
(housing and housing types) through policy and markets also play a role here
(Meegan & Mitchell, 2001). As such geography defines part of inclusion and
exclusion processes of certain individuals or groups. According to Meegan and
Mitchell, neighbourhoods should not per definition be seen as
“spatially integrated [G]emeinschaft (…), but as a key living space through which people get
access to material and social resources, across which they pass to reach other opportunities
and which symbolises aspects of the identity of those living there, to themselves and to
outsiders (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001, p. 2172).”
Thus, neighbourhoods are not necessarily to be seen as communities, but other
aspects and dynamics can define the social structure and level of social cohesion in
the local, spatial areas. Correspondingly, Forrest and Kearns (2001) identify four
different perspectives on neighbourhood: neighbourhood can be seen as a
community, as a context, as commodity, or as a consumption niche (Forrest &
Kearns, 2001). Identifying the way various stakeholders conceptualize
‘neighbourhood’ is crucial, because it enables stakeholders and policymakers to
communicate on the same wavelength.
Urban neighbourhoods continue to perform important roles in the daily life of people,
but the role of the neighbourhood is paralleled with increased activities and
connections outside the living area. Traditional domestic activities are simplified by
modern technologies and subsistence activities largely take place in spatially diffuse
networks. As such, recreation and leisure become more important functions of the
neighbourhood, whereas other activities largely take place outside the living quarters.
With this trend, the neighbourhood becomes an extension of personal identity of the
residents, whether they be seen as individuals or communities. As such, the image
and the location of the neighbourhood increasingly matter (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).
In order to develop a framework for social cohesion within the SUN project we
identified the following questions, which will be discussed in the subsequent
paragraphs.
1. How can social cohesion be defined in the context of deterritorialization,
individualizing societies and sustainable development
2. How much and what type of social cohesion is needed in order to improve the
livelihood of the SUN neighbourhoods in a sustainable way?
3. How can social cohesion be stimulated in practice in the neighbourhoods.
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
2. Social Cohesion, Individualizing Societies and Sustainable Development
According to the Council of Europe, social cohesion is “multi-dimensional in nature,
not only to inclusion of and participation by all in economic, social, cultural and
political life but to a sense of solidarity and belonging to society, based on an
effective enjoyment of citizenship and democracy (CoE, 2008, p.8).” The emphasis is
often on shared values and commitment in the recognition of a collective goal or
good. In this sense, if we evaluate social cohesion in the context of sustainable
development and if we define the common goal of neighbourhood to raise quality of
life, it embodies the opposite of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin, 1968). The
tragedy of the commons is a type of social trap that involves a conflict over resources
between individual and common interests. When individual interests prevail over
community interests, the common good will suffer from deterioration and degradation.
Hardin’s tragedy though, represents people as inherently tending towards making self
centred rational choices (Feeny et al., 1990). In that sense he interprets individualism
as a negative and destructive human characteristic.
This negative interpretation of individualism has encountered resistance by many
philosophers and sociologists. Charles Taylor for example, sees individualism as a
positive moral duty. Communautarists as Taylor emphasise the significance of
socially and commonly shared institutions for the development of and search for
individual meaning, purpose and identity. Individuals strive to be authentic beings
and as such they can add value to society instead of being a cogwheel of the societal
clockwork machine (Taylor, 1995). Desmond Morris goes even further in
emphasising the social basis of human nature (Morris, 1969). He sees a-social
behaviour as a symptom of our alienation from our natural state of being. He
compares people living in dense urban environments to animals in a zoo, behaving
neurotically because they are captured in a form of existence not fitting their nature.
The Human Zoo examines the nature of civilized society, especially in the cities.
Morris compares the human inhabitants of a city to the animal inhabitants of a zoo,
which have their survival needs provided for, but at the cost of living in an unnatural
environment. Humans in their cities, and animals in their zoos, both have food and
shelter provided for them, and both have considerable free time on their hands. But
they have to live in an unnatural environment. They suffer from isolation and
boredom, and both live in a limited amount of physical space. The living space often
is too crowded which often leads to problems in developing healthy social
relationships. Morris explains how the inhabitants of cities and zoos have invented
ways to deal with these problems, and the consequences that follow when they fail at
dealing with them (Morris, 1969).
Although they are divergent in their emphasis, these different theories about the
social context of human individuals show that in order for people to be well as
individuals, as a community and as people living sustainably in their social and
ecological environment, a sense of community and shared values and goals should
prevail over egocentric interests. Besides, it might well be that the globalization
developments together with the ageing European population will re-invoke a new
sense of the values of close relationships between people and between people and
their living places (Phillipson et al., 1999).
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
3. How much and what type of social cohesion is needed in order to improve
the livelihood of the SUN neighbourhoods in a sustainable way?
Forrest and Kearns (2001) identify a society with a lack of social cohesion as “one
with displayed social disorder and conflict, disparate moral values, extreme social
inequality, low levels of social interaction between and within communities and low
levels of place attachment (Forrest & Kearns, 2001, p.2128)”. On the other hand,
strongly cohesive neighbourhoods can be conflicting with each other as well and
might as such impact the macro-cohesion of the city. Social cohesion is therefore an
ambiguous concept and not necessarily a good thing. A majority for example can
impose its will or values on a minority, violating the integrity and freedom of
individuals of a group (Smith & Mackie, 2000), or neighbourhoods can fence
themselves with gates and other security measures towards the outside world,
affecting opportunities and contact chances for both insiders and outsiders (Forrest &
Kearns, 2001).
With the extremities in mind, we developed a scale of desirable social cohesion
(figure 1). At the two poles we find defensive bonds and at the other side fragmenting
terror and on top of the scale a sustainable level of cohesion and social well-being. In
between various levels of social cohesion can be identified, from people living
individualistically but content and peaceful, leaving each other at peace, to
communities who organize many common activities, where social control is high and
everybody knows each other (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Forrest and Kearns (2001)
state stat “[t]he less robust and less deep-rooted are neighbourhood networks, the
more stable and conflict-free may be the social order in which they sit (Forrest &
Kearns, 2001).
Figure 1: Social Cohesion Scale
An important question to ask within the Social Cohesion Action of the SUN project is
what defines the level of cohesion of the neighbourhoods on this scale? Can
denominators be found to define this? In order to find out, it would be beneficial to list
some existing social cohesion indicator studies
4. Social Cohesion Indicators
In a New Zealand study general and often used social cohesion indicators were
defined (Spoonley et al., 2005). They largely overlap with the indicators of the
Council of Europe and the European Union (figure 2).
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
Figure 2. Spoonley Indicators
Another set of indicators, developed in a Flemish study, was defined by Reeksens.
(See figure 3.)
Figure 3. Sociale Cohesie Indicatoren in Vlaanderen (Reeskens et al.).
.
4. How can social cohesion be stimulated in practice in the neighbourhoods?
4.1. Stepping Stones
Most of the research carried out on social cohesion reflects the driving force of
political agenda because the tendency has been to focus on deprived or poor
neighbourhoods (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). This has been criticized by some scholars,
because the assessments are usually ‘symptom based’ rather than aimed at
developing a “useful heuristic device for structuring (…) community studies (Forrest &
Kearns, 2001). Still, the major downside of the concept of social cohesion is its
abstract and vague character. Therefore, next to defining the term for the specific
context it will be used in, concrete strategies have to be visualized in order to move
from abstraction into practice. These strategies should take into full account the local
context, and therefore it is not desirable to develop a ‘blueprint’ of social cohesion. In
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
this paragraph a number of theories will be discussed which could function as
steppingstones in order to develop such more concrete strategies.
The European Council, for example, developed a revised strategy for social cohesion
in 2004. The approach of the strategy rests on four pillars: 1. the idea of shared
responsibility crossing public and private spheres; 2. the legal recognition of
individual rights has to be accompanied by a set of policy processes that weave
together economic growth, human well-fare and sustainable development1; 3. the
active reintegration of vulnerable groups; 4. highlighting of the positive impacts on the
values underlying cohesive societies of responsible implementation of public action
(CoE, 2008).
In the reviewed literature other clues for practical stimulation of social cohesion could
be identified. In order to develop strategies for social cohesion policy, Forrest and
Kearns (2001) identified various domains of social capital (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Forrest and Kearns, 2001, p.2140
In order to make the complex character of neighbourhood and community more
tangible, Davies and Herbert (1993) identified three domains of place based
communities: the areal content, behaviour and interaction and conceptual identity
(Davies & Herbert, 1993). The areal content refers to the existent social structures in
the area, the social ecology of the place (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001). Behaviour and
1
What sustainable development entails is not discussed and defined in the document. We define SD
as balancing the domains people, planet and prosperity for current and future generations. With that
we link to the Brundtland definition of Sustainable Development (1987).
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
interaction relates to the engagement of people in social and economic settings, and
the level of dependency of the neighbourhood milieu. The interactions are often
extended outside of the area content. Conceptual identity relates to the feeling about
the place. It can be divided into cognitive and affective identity. Cognitive identity
relates to the names, territorial markings and mental maps that the inhabitants have
of the area. The affective domain relates to the meanings and attitudes and social
values that people hold about their neighbourhoods and communities
Research by various authors suggests that for sound social capital to emerge, a high
degree of homogeneity is required. Communities with high levels of racial and
cultural diversity seem to have lower levels of interpersonal trust and of formal and
informal networks (Letki, 2008). These assessments question the validity of the
concept of multiculturalism and put assimilation strategies back to the policy
agendas. Other researchers are more optimistic about people living and working
together although they have various lifestyles, basic assumptions and management
strategies (Verweij et al., 2006). Raising cultural awareness and literacy are seen as
the remedies of distrust and misunderstanding (Erez & Gati, 2004; Cushner & Brislin,
1997; Ting-Toomey, 1999).
Therefore, another significant steppingstone can be found in Cultural Theory
(Thompson, 1997; Thompson et al., 1990). This theory “puts culture at the centre of
the explanation of social life” (Mamadouh, 1999, p.395). In line with the theory, the
organization of social relations can be divided into four basic different patterns,
namely, (1) egalitarianism, (2) hierarchy, (3) individualism, and (4) fatalism (Verweij
et al., 2006). These four organizing principles tend to “produce different ways of
perceiving (human) nature, and the policy prescriptions that follow from that (Verweij
et al., 2006, p.819)”. The “level of social stratifications and group solidarity are
determining factors of collective action and behavior (Verweij et al., 2006, p.838)”.
Figure 5: Cultural Theory Axes
The CT typology integrates both rational choice theory and post-structuralism
(Verweij et al., 2006). Rational choice theorists assume that societies and cultures
are fundamentally the same because they consist of human beings who share the
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
same basic needs. Post-structuralists share the view dominates that every person,
culture or community is inherently unique. CT is based on the notion that although
cultures do differ, they do not differ endlessly (Verweij et al., 2006). Awareness of the
'cultural perspectives' based on this axis, is increasingly regarded valuable in
discussions concerning complex issues related to Sustainable Development on
various levels, domains and scales and therefore it is suitable for complex issues at
the neighbourhood level as well. It can help finding synergies and conflicts in
lifestyles and basic assumptions and as such can improve pathways towards mutual
understanding and trust. CT can be useful on the complex questions related social
cohesion on the neighbourhood level and used as a tool to help formulating
strategies and options.
Open Questions:
Some questions still remain open here and need some input and discussion:
a. Actors and Stakeholders involved in Social Cohesion Processes
b. How can the Social Cohesion Action be linked to the Greening, Energy and
Economy Actions in the SUN project?
c. The situation in the SUN Neighbourhoods (to be filled in box 1)
Box 1: Social Cohesion in the SUN neighbourhoods
Successes
St. Leonard -- Liege
Opportunities
Hodimont -- Verviers
Successes
Opportunities
Case area Genk
Successes
Opportunities
MSP -- Heerlen
Successes
Opportunities
Case area Eupen
Successes
Opportunities
Case area Aachen
Successes
Opportunities
Literature:
Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Scholte, J. A. (2002). Globalization: a critical introduction. New York: Palgrave.
CoE. (2008). Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe. Report of high level
task force on social cohesion. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.
Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010
Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of Neighbourhood. Urban Studies,
38(12), 2103-2110.
Nederveen-Pieterse, J. (2004). Globalization and Culture. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers Inc.
Meegan, R., & Mitchell, A. (2001). Ít's not Community Round here, it's Neighbourhood':
Neighbourhood Change and Cohesion in Urban Regeneration Policies. Urban studies,
38(12), 2167-2194.
Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Loorbach, D. (2002). Transition Management: governance for sustainability. Paper presented
at the Conference for Governance and Sustainability: New Challenges for the State,
Business and Society.
Grosskurth, J. (2009). Regional sustainability. tools for Integrated Governance., Maastricht
University, Maastricht.
Latour, B. (1988). Wetenschap in Actie. Wetenschap en technici in de maatschappij.
Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Cranz, G., & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the sustainable park: a fifth model for urban parks.
Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102-120.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of The Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Feeny, D., et al. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: twenty two years later. Human
Ecology, 18(1), 1-19.
Taylor, C. (1995). Multiculturalisme. Meppel: Boom.
Morris, D. (1969). The Human Zoo. New York: Kodansha America Inc.
Phillipson, C., et al. (1999). Older people's experiences of community life: patterns of
neighbouring'in three urban areas. Sociological Review, 47, 715-739.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social Pychology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Psychology
Press.
Spoonley, P., et al. (2005). Social Cohesion: A Policy and Indicator Framework for Assessing
Immignat and Host Outcomes. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand(24), 85-110.
Reeskens, T., et al. Is Social Cohesion one Latent Concept? Investigating the dimensionality
of social cohesion on the basis of the Kearns and Forrest (2000) typology. Leuven:
Center for Political Research, KULeuven-Social Cohesion Indicators Flanders.
BrundtlandCommission. (1987). Our Common Future.
Davies, W. K. D., & Herbert, D. T. (1993). Communities within Cities: an Urban Social
Geography. London: Belhaven Press.
Letki, N. (2008). Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Political Studies, 56, 99-126.
Verweij, M., et al. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate change.
Public Administration, 84(4), 817-843.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: from the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53(4), 583-598.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, W. (1997). Improving Intercultural Interactions (Vol. 2). London:
Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communication Across Cultures. New York/London: The Guilford
Press.
Thompson, M. (1997). Cultural Theory and Integrated Assessment. Environmental Modeling
and Assessment, 2, 139-150.
Thompson, M., et al. (1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
SUN project Interreg IV-A
ICIS, JUNE 2010