Whose society? Whose cohesion?

Historical perspectives show us just how limited our ideas of societal cohesion are.

Professor Alan Bowman FBA and Professor Greg Woolf FBA

Any contemporary discussion about what makes societies cohesive needs to be based on broad definitions and notions of what a ‘society’ is and what institutions and social factors promote, manage or undermine cohesiveness. Modern discussions tend to focus heavily on legal rights and instruments, because our civil society has a particularly strong relationship with the state. Disputes over social normativity are to a great extent addressed either through legislation (such as the 2010 Equality Act) or regulation (such as the recent guidance to schools in England and Wales about the nature and landscape of Sex Education) and we look to public authorities to manage social change either proactively or reactively.

A much wider historical perspective encourages us to debate the ways in which social cohesion has often been shaped by different kinds of bodies or groups which might be the locus of ‘political’ authority. In societies where state institutions were weaker or largely absent, decisions which affected cohesion might be in the hands of groups of elders, tribal chiefs and/or religious leaders. Actual enforcement of social sanctions was often the customary prerogative of male heads of household, in classical, mediaeval and even early modern England (which Peter Laslett described as in effect an association between the wealthier and higher status heads of family). In the past social cohesion was customarily described in relation to networks formed by kinship and communities bound together by local traditions. Many past societies changed rapidly, and social cohesion changes as a part of that process: the extension of citizenship to the various regions and peoples conquered by Rome, the abolition of the slave trade, the growth of secular nations after the wars of religion are all cases in point. Social cohesion has been constantly redefined. Nor has this process stopped.

One benefit of taking the long view is that it opens the door to contest and debate our locally dominant notion of social cohesion. Around the world and within the UK, alternative notions (some old, some quite new) challenge the liberal consensus. Appreciating the contingent nature of modern definitions of social cohesion — and their relatively recent invention — helps us to imagine the possibility of further improvement. An historical approach allows us to determine how we might (or might not) move from the conservation and preservation of existing values, to strategies or social policies which might form a programme of improving social cohesion. It invites us to approach social cohesion not simply in a defensive and protective mode, but to set it at heart of what is potentially a socially transformative project.

With this in mind we have invited contributors to write provocatively on social cohesion as a contested value, in relation to the places and periods they know best, with a particular focus on how social cohesion(s) has/have been challenged, defended and modified over time.