Cohesion as Social Solidarity: Cohesion as social solidarity, empirically speaking, focuses on levels of co-operation between social groups and classes, and is most obviously seen in levels of consensus and co-operation regarding social citizenship rights and welfare provision (for example see Silver 1994: 540 – table 1).

Cohesion as Integration/Assimilation: Discussed in the cohesion section above, if cohesion is about assimilation/integration in order to create a more harmonious society, this should be reflected in the implementation of government policy and in the improvement of cultural and ethnic relations in designated ‘problem’ areas (for example see McGhee 2003; Worley 2005). This will, however, ignore socio-economic problems.

Cohesion as Diversification/differentiation of rights and responsibilities: Some have argued that whereas equality of status is possible under citizenship, citizenship rights and responsibilities may be better placed in a differential fashion (i.e. Kymlicka and Norman 1994). This is because Citizens may be equal in status, but they can belong in different ways, altering their relationship with the state (Kymlicka and Norman 2000). Tied up in this are more deep-set notions of justice (Stevenson 2007: 255) and, by extension, issues of morality (Turner 2001). This can be examined through analysing discourse and by discussing and analysing first hand experience of how groups and individual citizens access their citizenship rights.

Cohesion as control: Although not as well documented as other aspects of cohesion, it is possible that cohesion could be used as a tool to influence or control individuals and social groups (for example see Amin 2005; see also Pearce and Tombs 1998; Lemke 2001; 2002). Understanding how the UK government has extended its influence at the local level, arguably in to areas that traditionally fell outside the realm of central governance, for example will contribute strongly to a greater understanding of how groups within polities interact with each other and with the state.

Cohesion as a space for dialectical development: As per the discussion earlier in the review, the arguably dialectical nature of society and development is paramount for understanding the interaction between social classes and other social groups. Cohesion provides an ideal empirical space in which to observe and analyse such dialectical development. The study of the master/slave dialectic (Hegel 1977), the dialectic of the proletariat and bourgeoisie (i.e. dialectical materialism and historical materialism), as well as the importance of hegemony and counter-hegemony with particular regard to civil society (i.e. Cox 1981; 1983; Gill and Law 1989), an important facet of the UK’s community cohesion framework (McGhee 2003).

‘[S]ince the Revolution, the nation has been a matter not of heredity but of political and cultural identities, loyalties, rights, and duties. The nation was defined, created, or recreated by the state, which meant that subnations and subnational identities were deprived of political legitimacy and integrated in to the nation-state’ ( emphasis added)

- Safran, 1991, Nation, national identity and citizenship: France as a test case, Int. Political science review, 12 (3), 219-238

The French project is/was a noble one. It’s just a shame the political state can not be divorced from the imagined community. If you try, you end up politicising the nation, which causes all kinds of problems.

[this is an excerpt from the first draft of my lit review, which I thought would be interesting to share with the world. All comments appreciated. And if any undergrads happen upon this and fancy nicking it, I wouldn't. Firstly you can't reference it because a blog isn't considered an academically rigorous source, and if you copy it a quick google will show where it came from! ]

The UK can be described as having a liberal citizenship framework, which ‘involves a loosely committed relationship to the state, a relationship held in place in the main by a set of civic rights, honoured by the state, which otherwise interferes as little as possible in the citizen’s life’ (Heater 2005: 4). This is an ideal type and certainly has its issues when examining the UK’s contemporary interpretation of liberal citizenship, some of which will be discussed later. However, as a basic characterisation it is fairly accurate. British liberal citizenship also contains an ideal of equality – all citizens are equal under the eyes of the law. This allows for just treatment and effectively institutionalises the principle of the defence of one’s rights to ‘life, liberty and property’ (Locke 1988). However, this particular configuration of rights does not lend itself to the development of a community spirit, or the development of an actual community, as:

‘None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves’ (Marx 1843 [‘on the Jewish question’ - Marxists.org])

Liberal citizenship, therefore, is ontologically individualist. The individual may be brought in to the workings of the state or society in the form of voting or inclusion in civil society, but ultimately as an individual, with individual needs. This has a substantial effect on the development of the British welfare regime, and the light in which it is cast. As an extension of welfare provision, it also has an indirect effect on how the ideas and ideals of cohesion are treated and developed in the British case. Heater in fact asserts that liberal citizenship is a political expression of capitalism, insofar as the main aim of the citizen in the liberal system is the ‘accrual of wealth’ (Heater 2005: 7). He points to three epochal distinctions to defend his point. First, the dichotomy of feudal lord and peasant as opposed to the ‘exercise of individual initiative’ – a key component of capitalism; second, the breakdown of strict hierarchy from feudalism and the development of a more permeable (but still potentially as strict) hierarchy found in capitalism; third, the ‘integration and solidification of the nation-state, so essential for the capitalist’, facilitating the development of citizenship as an arm of national identity (Heater 2005: 8). It is possible to deduce from this logic that liberal citizenship potentially has more benefits for the capitalist system rather than the citizen, as it perpetuates an ontology in the social psyche that is inherently attuned to the ideals of capitalism and the free market. By extension this contradicts the ideal of equality, due to the fact that if citizenship is predicated upon the capitalist mode of operation, which is by nature inherently unequal, any form of equality becomes hard to maintain. This is summed up perfectly by TH Marshall – ‘it is clear that in the twentieth century, citizenship and the capitalist class system have been at war’ (Marshall 1992: 18). Marshall viewed citizenship as a tool to make acceptable the inevitable inequalities found within capitalism. His starting point, crucially, was accepting that capitalism’s influence had led to compatibility between citizenship and the class system, therefore rendering ineffective its main purpose as a tool to increase equality, at least in the legal sense.

It is from Marshall’s analysis that the three main aspects of contemporary citizenship are derived: civic citizenship – the traditional view of citizenship, consisting of the basic rights needed for an individual to participate in the mechanics of society and state (i.e. life, liberty, property); political citizenship – the ‘right to participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body invested with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body’ (Marshall 1992: (i.e. the right to political participation, such as the right to vote, or stand for office); and social citizenship – the right to live as a ‘civilised being’, usually with some form of economic welfare and minimum standards of living. The development of social worth as a result of these sets of citizenship rights developed and legitimised the idea of belonging to a community, instead of existing simply as a loose collection of individuals. This has engendered the British phenomenon of interventionist liberalism, commonly associated with Keynsianism and the rise of the British welfare state. This will be discussed later on in the review.

‘Today the youths of Aubervilliers speak of revolt. “If one day we get organised, we’ll have grenades, explosives and Kalashnikovs. We’ll gather at the Bastille and there’ll be a war.

From France: the riots and the republic – Race and Class 47 (4), 2006

Hence the lack of middle class rioting. Which is a shame, because a middle class riot would be hilarious to watch. I can see breaks for tea and poor light…

Whereas all the papers I heard were extraordinarily good (my head hasn’t hurt like that for a long time. It’s a weird feeling when you’re straining to keep up with the intellectual current whilst watching other, albeit much more experienced, people keep up or set the pace so easily), two really got my attention:‘Creating the Knowledge Citizen: Welfare State Intervention in the Knowledge Economy’ by Jenny Andersson from Sciences Po in Paris, and ‘Boring Banking and the Future of Welfare Provision in Britain’ by Matthew Watson from the University of Warwick. It’s these two papers I’ll be focusing on the most for the next while.

I’d also like to point out that the opinions below aren’t the opinions of the authors. They are my slightly academic rants: raw, and not acceptable for academic publication. The way nature intended.

Creating the Knowledge Citizen

This paper was particularly enjoyable for me, as it confirmed almost everything I have been thinking related to my PhD so far. It’s nice to know that there is at least one established academic who may be drawing similar conclusions to you! This paper was predicated on notions of welfare state and social policy intervention in the mid 90s, up until the early to mid 2000s, noting a change from classical neoliberalism associated with the 70s and 80s, to discourses parallel to those surrounding the ‘knowledge economy’. The idea was to create a new welfare state that is compatible with this knowlegde economy.

The knowledge economy is something I’ve seen a lot about, but never seldom analysed. My worry was getting bogged down in too much prescription of institutions and missing the point. Well, after this paper I realised the problem wasn’t overanalysis, but instead the focus of analysis. A lot of my MA dissertation and my PhD deals with the UK’s community cohesion (CC) discourse, its aims and its operational philosophy. Lots of people have made cogent links between the aims and processes of community cohesion and Foucauldian governmentality theory. This is something I have been looking at recently, as one of the main aims of CC is to reconfigure citizens to make them (for want of a better word) more compatible with the state’s philosophy. [ As an aside, this is fantastic from a party political point of view because this isn't something that can be changed easily by an opposition party in power. It would take a discourse and framework comparable to community cohesion to do it and, as we've seen from the current discourse, at least a decade to really take root.] But how does this connect with ideas of welfare? It does so in two ways: firstly, CC can be seen to represent the evolution in welfare provision, compatible with the knowledge economy. The focus is no longer on socio-economic inequalities reminiscent of flat caps, coal mines and factories; it has shifted to accommodate a more socio-cultural angle which, in my opinion, many of the most pertinent issues in modern European society and replaces them with more ‘fashionable’ ones. This isn’t to say that socio-cultural/ethnic tension and cooperation shouldn’t be prioritised – it is just the fact that the way in which it is being done problematises certain ethnic groups and in fact can worsen problems by making them out to be bigger than they actually are. This idea is nothing new, of course. Socialists and anti-racists were saying the same thing in response to the multiculturalist policies aimed at making schooling more inclusive. The problem there? Instead of focusing on the real problems, most time was spent on superficial issues – saris, bangles and bhajis. The second way it connects with ideas on welfare is the philosophy behind it. CC in the UK was a direct response to the riots in Yorkshire at the turn of the 21st century. It was also a direct reflection of the semi communitarian, semi neoliberal philosophy espoused by the New Labour government: responsibilities over rights, individual responsibility above all else and, ironically, less direct state intervention in welfare from the government. Of course this intervention has simply shifted its focus. The government would rather now get involved in community issues, confirming the ‘existence’ of a partially existent non-existent problem. This intervention however means that the state can exert influence in areas of society that were previously out of bounds. This inevitably causes a tension in a traditionally liberal nation-state that still values the public/private dichotomy.

These discourses, according to the author, are also tied up in conservative discourses that are concerned with the quality and quantity of human matter (i.e. human capital). In this configuration a skilled labour force reduce ‘waste’ in capitalism. In other words, by maximising the productivity of the human, you can facilitate the lessening of capitalism’s contradictions, making for a more stable social and economic organisational system. [Of course, it is also fantastic for the owners of the means of production/bourgeoisie]. This begins to show the link between neoliberal tenets and the CC/’knowledge welfare’ discourse. To perpetuate such a system you need highly motivated, self reliant individuals. They must believe that fate is fully in their hands, they are capable of anything (or at least anything in their field) and that ultimately they are responsible for everything they do and everything that happens to them. There are two frameworks/institutions in the UK that help achieve this goal. One is obvious (I’ve been rambling about it for the past 3 paragraphs) – CC. The other? Welfare activation/insertion.

CC and welfare activation have at heart the same methodologically individualist philosophy – you, and you entirely, are the master of your own fate. Regardless of any other form of evidence that may be out there (not getting a job even though you’re the most qualified, being intelligent and a hard worker but not rising out of your class group, being discriminated against on the grounds of religion, colour, social background, personal circumstances etc) you will either believe yourself, or be told without doubt, that the only person to blame is yourself. It is no longer the fault of structured inequalities. So if a community isn’t cohesive enough [and the jury is still out on what constitutes a 'cohesive' community] it must be the fault of one group of people. You don’t have to be a genius to see that this policy of targeting isn’t going to help much. Furthermore, both CC and welfare activation treat people differently. They are less citizen, more consumer/investor/commodity. They must do this, conform to that, and don’t do the other.  In terms of welfare activation, you work for capitalism. Capitalism does not work for you.  The aim is employability, not employment. We have moved away from a Keynesian state of affairs to one that is not concerned overtly with the welfare of individuals, but the creation of an internationally competitive labour force.  Personal welfare and gratification now must be taken in to account in parallel to if you have served your duty to the economy. You are no longer a welfare recipient: you are a welfare dependent. You are obviously either too lazy to get a job or there is something wrong with you. Citizens are no longer helped because of a desire to help people. Citizens are helped because of supply and demand. We must get these inefficient producers back in to the market.

So remember. It’s your fault.

Boring Banking

I tried to ask a question about this one, and got a bit lost in my own thoughts. My brain sometimes works quicker than my mouth, and it shows. Either that or people think (sometimes rightly) that I’m stupid. C’est la vie.

I know nothing about finance, so I grappled with this as best I could. The most interesting point for me was the idea of a welfare crisis being directly linked to the financial crisis.  This would be a perfect bit of blame avoidance for any government that wanted to attempt to retrench the welfare state further. There’s a war on, don’t you know?! What an opportunity to entrench retrenchment. Anyway, a result of this was a drive to regulate some banks to make them more responsible, only being allowed to gain money from certain avenues. My mind jumped back to the idea of community cohesion and the reconfiguration of the citizen. To get people to do what you want, sometimes it’s best to lead by example.

The problem is, according to the author, that people now want the old style paternal bank manager – the man who says no more than yes – as well as the perks of easy credit. I think because people are now either used to credit or too reliant on it. [I wouldn't be here without my overdraft!] Either way, the development of this new system has created ‘investor subjects’. As far as I’m concerned you can add that term to the ‘consumer/commodity’ list above. We’re moving from being citizens to ephemeral consumer-citizens.

A question that the author asked is considering multiple claims are made of these people to act in simultaneously different ways with their capital (and of course, I’m thinking, everything else that goes along with it in modern society) which leads to contradictions, how do people cope with them? The author said they are most likely internalised. I think this is true, but this can only go on for so long. They could, I hope, come out in other ways, such as ‘race’ riots. In an area that is being made so much of recently, it could make sense. This is what I really need to look in to.

The question is: can I manage to link finance in to my holistic community cohesion/welfare activation/neoliberal/communitarian/individualist statist mesh? I suppose time will tell.

Number one:

Changing patterns of immigration, perceptions of the increase in the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers and social unrests in Northern England in 2001 (in the towns of Oldham and Burnley and the city of Bradford) have brought the relationship between community cohesion and ethnic diversity to the forefront of public and political debate

Now unless I’m seriously mistaken (and considering I did my MA dissertation on this subject I really hope I’m not), the idea of community cohesion didn’t really exist before 2001. If it did, it certainly wasn’t worth talking about. 2001 shows the change from rhetoric on social cohesion to rhetoric on community cohesion, the former dealing primarily with socio-economic concerns and the latter dealing with socio-cultural/ethnic concerns, and largely ignoring socio-economic problems.

Number Two:

However, while this public debate seems highly politicized and emotion-based, it is important to look at the link between community cohesion and diversity in a more systematic way. This paper examines the impact of racial diversity on one particular dimension of social cohesion: social capital.

Following on from point one really – the author here conflates social cohesion with community coheison. That just aint on! A simple thing with less simple consequences.

I shall read on, and hopefully all of the above will be negated. Hopefully.

It will consist mainly of my thoughts on how my research is going, interesting points I thought I’d throw out to the world and, most likely, my utter frustration with the world and all the people in it. Except you, of course. I like you.

Expect dry humour, rants, and quite alot of polemic. And by quite, I probably mean a lot. If you do end up reading this blog at all, and you have any comments whatsoever on what I post, be they positive or negative I’d really appreciate it if you’d post them here. How am I supposed to learn if no one talks to me?

No one ever talks to me…