inspired their selection of components and indicators, which makes this selection
somewhat arbitrary.
This study will adopt the same approach as Green et al but will be explicit
about the theoretical models it utilizes. As the objective is not to embrace a particular
theoretical model from the start and attempt to make it measurable but rather to
critically scrutinize the consistency of the social cohesion models proposed by various
theoretical approaches, the current study will not draw on one but on several
theoretical approaches for its choice of indicators. Consequently, I start from an open
and parsimonious definition of the concept which does not implicitly or explicitly
convey a preference for any of the theoretical approaches: social cohesion - in my
understanding - is simply the property that keeps societies from falling apart. This
definition does betray one crucial assumption: social cohesion is a characteristic of a
society, not of a community or other sub-state entity. Green et al (2006) point out that
only a macro-level understanding of social cohesion allows researchers to capture
both inter- and intra-community conflicts within society. Equating social cohesion
with social capital and considering it to be a local-level phenomenon would in their
view not be able to detect the nature of inter-group relations (harmonious or
antagonistic). In addition, Chan et al (2006) argue that social cohesion should not be
seen as the property of an even higher level of analysis either because the sovereign
state is still the prime policy maker and frame of reference for most citizens. I agree
with these observations and will consequently only draw on theoretical approaches
which understand social cohesion to be a societal-level phenomenon.
Apart from considering only societal-level approaches I apply Moody and
White’s (2003) useful distinction between the ideational and relational dimension of
social cohesion to broadly frame these approaches. The ideational dimension refers to
shared norms, values and identities as the affective side of social cohesion. The
relational dimension refers to the observed relationships between members within a
collectivity. The concepts clearly have their origin in Durkheim’s (1984) notions of
mechanical and organic forms of solidarity, which he used to describe the nineteenth
century transformation of society from a loose collection of small communities based
on shared values and identities to a more integrated whole held together by inter-
dependencies and conflict-regulating mechanisms. Durkheim believed nonetheless
that modern society also to some extent depended on shared values and feelings of
belonging and he saw professional organizations as key agents in generating and
maintaining such values and identities.
The components of social cohesion highlighted by the societal-level
approaches can all be classified as either representing the ideational or relational
dimension of social cohesion. In addition to the aforementioned approaches of Green
et al (2003) and Chan et al (2006), I have identified those of the Council of Europe
(2005) and Kearns and Forrest (2000) as macro-level approaches. The Council of
Europe (CoE) defines social cohesion as “society’s ability to secure the long-term
well-being of its members, including equitable access to available resources, respect
for human dignity with due regard for diversity, personal and collective autonomy and
responsible participation” (Council of Europe, 2005: 23). Kearns and Forrest (2000:
997) provide the following definition: “a socially cohesive society is one in which the
members share common values which enable them to identify common aims and
objectives, and share a common set of moral principles and codes of behavior through
which to conduct their relations with one another”. They identify five “constituent
components” of social cohesion: (1) common values and a civic culture; (2) social
order and social control; (3) social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparities; (4)