Marlene de Beer
A DANCE OF SOCIAL COHESION METAPHORS
Yüklə 217,86 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Breaking the rules of the game: poems, dialogues boxes UBUNTU
- International contenders: the dance of emperors, gladiators 17 and the social capital wave…
- Yin-Yang
- The Pendulum and the Humpty Dumpty Effect
A DANCE OF SOCIAL COHESION METAPHORSKaleidoscope…In my quest to understand what social cohesion might mean, I have come to draw on several metaphors that may capture an evolving potential that I would like to share with you, e.g.: the Tango; White light prism effect; Emperors and gladiators; Pendulum; Spiral, Humpty Dumpty, Snowflakes and Crabs. My journey has led me amongst some of the following paths which is rather like a kaleidoscope, bits and pieces, fragments of ‘social cohesion’ interpretations, each with its own colouring, size, brightness, transparency… and it’s patterns, images and interpretation change as the person turns the instrument…and the play of mirrors and reflections signifies a possible new and different gaze… (also see Claude Lévi-Struass, 1972:36). I propose a developing and evolving rainbow prism and /or kaleidoscope of representations on social cohesion. I group these social cohesion perspectives preliminarily under the following possible categorised and broad themes7 (which is not meant to be rigid, permanent or definite) dealing with –
Liaison dangereuse or tango romantica? As indicated earlier, the article of Sharon Jeannotte (2000), ‘Tango Romantica or Liasons Dangereuses?’ has inspired the first part of this article’s title. She uses this metaphor to explore the developments around social cohesion and begins to ask if it is a dance with the devil – a ‘liaison dangereuse’ that will drive us into the arms of those that do not have our best interests at heart, or is it a ‘tango romantica’ – a new and beautiful dance with a partner who understands and support our artistic and creative impulses? She also divides it into the following scenes: prelude – choosing the dance; choreography – blocking out the steps; rehearsal – perfecting the steps; taking to the ice – the dance begins; the judging – how are we doing? She also poses and questions if we are skating on thin ice, mentions that it takes two to tango and that it is essential to bringing all the partners together (Jeannotte, in a PowerPoint presentation, 11 November 1999). Additionally, for me this implies asking if we are only acting or playing according to the rules? Then I ask: whose rules, did we participate in developing them and are these perceived as legitimate? If not, then it may indeed become a ‘liaison dangereuse’. On another level, there also seems to be an urgency to develop social cohesion indicators and measurement instruments to satisfy the strong push to quantifying social cohesion. However, as Andy Green and John Preston (2001:258) caution: “…quantitative approaches may well miss the key issue for social cohesion. What do people join for and how does it enhance social integration?” I therefore argue that the challenge remains to find alternative and creative ways to interpret our current state of bonding, bridging and binding ties; to understand what holds us together when everything else seems to be pulling us apart, and when so many variables infringe on our current and future quality of life and well-being. What ever we devise in our search, I hope we will not be treating merely the symptoms but be able to engage with the root causes… Additionally, I have noticed that most working definitions seem to be developed out of experiences and research in relatively stable countries (e.g. Canada), and consequently falls more within the consensus / control paradigm and does not account for change and conflict. This therefore indicate that within the two broad schools, the consensus model is supported and developed above the conflict model /movement. What does this say to about us and our society? I have therefore developed the following broad definition on social cohesion during the beginning stage of my inquiry to include social conflict and violence8:
Continuing with the fault lines and critique it can be argued that social cohesion is a critical concept but not necessarily a forward-looking concept.
Furthermore, the current and academic interest in cohesion seems to be an expression of a sense that something social is wrong but we don’t know exactly what. It is argued that social cohesion ‘deserves the actuality of the contemporary debate’ because all social problems, from unemployment to drug abuse, lead to a concern about ‘what keeps society together’ (Talja Blockland, 2000:57 & Kees Vendrik, in Kees Schuyt, 1997:7). Neoliberal economics, social policy and academic interest in social cohesion illustrate how various society sectors /structures, disciplines and interest groups constantly influence each other. Funding for the study of cohesion shows how important it is considered to be. Additionally the question is: Are we dealing with a unique social problem, or is something else going on? Since no one says it aloud, it is hard to prove, but it is far more likely that high funded social cohesion research has a hidden agenda (Talja Blockland, 2000:61). Additionally, the purpose of this paper is not to provide any theoretical origins and explanations for social cohesion. Just as reference though, in some cases, from a sociological perspective, Ëmile Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity and in lesser extent Ferdinand Tönnies’s Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft are provided. I would argue that even Durkheims’ theory on suicide has implications for social cohesion (asking why has it become necessary for individuals to disconnect entirely from life and society and could it have been prevented and how?). Furthermore drawing on theoretical aspects of Max Weber, Talcott Parsons and Karl Marx may also serve useful. I though also share Talja Blockland’s (2000:56) unease that the theoretical framework in current use is inadequate for studying either cohesion or exclusion (probably because the philosophical and sociological origins has been hijacked by political, economical and policy agendas). Furthermore, these theoretical frameworks are also malestream dominated.
White light, the prism effect and multi-dimensional models As white light disperse trough a prism and produce a rainbow of colours, so is /or may there be a rainbow of social cohesion perspectives and interpretations. There may indeed be a variety of perspectives and interpretation on social cohesion. What are they, where do they come from, constructed by whom and what purpose and value do they have? Do we take social cohesion for granted as with white light? We might think we know what it is (white light / social cohesion), but can we define it; really capture it completely? Furthermore social cohesion seems to be a quasi concept of multi-complex nature. Desmond Tutu’s construction and symbolism of a South African rainbow nation may also be appropriate here. Unfortunately, the reality is that the rainbow colour of white light falls only in a very narrow visible range of a much broader spectrum of possibilities (e.g. radio, microwave, infrared, X-ray, gamma-rays). Our sight is limited and may therefore deceive us. Similarly, social cohesion may have an easily visible nature; with the danger of limiting interpretation formed from this single sensory activity only or predominantly. So what might the broader spectrum of possibilities on social cohesion be? Social cohesion may involve activity (or non-activity) and choice of:
So why do we chose one above the other, or commit ourselves to activity / involvement? How do we define this activity?
Alan Smith (2001, supervisory session) proposed that the development of social cohesion could be placed on the following spectrum: On the one side of the spectrum we have separate development, people living apart, this happened in SA through Apartheid legislation (thus statutory). Though in NI people living apart happened more voluntary. By living apart, if you continue to move on the spectrum, there could even be some state of peaceful co-existence, tolerance or even realisation of interdependence. Further on, at the other side of the spectrum, we have integration, people living together. Comparatively between NI & SA, the measure of integration in SA is much higher. Relating it to school integration, SA is more than 35% and NI more than 4%. To move towards and reach a high level of integration, or having people living together peacefully and voluntary, aspects as intercultural understanding, diversity, pluralism, critical multiculturalism, social justice and human rights play a central role is developing such a ‘inclusive’ culture. Therefore social cohesion can be seen as the dynamic fluctuation between living together and living apart within a broader culture of peace. Though, social cohesion also requires from us to go beyond and appreciate the aesthetics… Breaking the rules of the game: poems, dialogues boxes & UBUNTUThe following poetically represented data poem that I developed and presented earlier9 also captures some of the above and allows for the artistic and creative sentiments to surface in our explorations around social cohesion (I therefore also use and incorporate PowerPoint slides throughout this paper, used previously in various conference presentations as my understanding about social cohesion evolved): Poetically presented data - poem 110: SOCIAL COHESION DIALOGUES       
The above and next poem to follow raises issues relating to the concept of social cohesion (my first research objective) and queries the purpose of social cohesion. Whose agenda is promoted and why? Why does it seem necessary only to impose and push international agendas (e.g., of the World Bank or European Union)? It also questions why social cohesion is experienced as pressure to play by the rules of the game (determined by those in power). Even international bodies and organisations, such as the World Bank, European Union and UNESCO, who have been using social cohesion as a policy concept have failed to produce conceptual and theoretical frameworks (also see Jenson, 2002), leaving the perception that it has been little more than political rhetoric. Perhaps social cohesion is the latest in vogue discourse to supplement and camouflage structural adjustment programes in developing countries (as echoed by some interview respondents). I am, therefore, suggesting that thinking has not developed to a point where it can be aligned /synchronised and codified as a common understanding among all. Inferences drawn from these poems includes a call to recognise and respect the fact that the development and evolution of education for social cohesion is therefore indigenous and unique (e.g., UBUNTU culture), and that it is not only determined by where it is implemented, but also by the mechanisms /indicators employed. Thus expressing a caution against power (plays) and political processes of international organisations that could sabotage deeper sustenance of social cohesion.
The Department of Education has also incorporated a UBUNTU syllabuses:100 with the values of sharing, caring, kindness, forgiveness, sympathy, tolerance, respect, love, appreciation, consideration and the rights of the child as the main pillars of Ubuntu. An Ubuntu Code of Conduct was also developed, incorporating the following: integrity, incorruptibility, good faith, impartiality, openness, accountability, justice, respect, generosity and leadership (Johan Broodryk, 2002: 147-149). There is also the Ubuntu Pledge and Ubuntu Moral Regeneration Movement (Johan Broodryk, 2002:149-153). I would also argue that this Ubuntu practice and philosophy has been a key in the internationally acclaimed magical transformation that SA has undergone; though the struggle is not over. Furthermore, an icon as Nelson Mandela is a living embodiment of the Ubuntu philosophy and practice (also known as the Madiba Magic and archetype). I now present poetically presented data - poem 2: Constructed from integrating personal data (interpretations, reflections and observations) and empirical data (transcribed interview notes), with an epistemological undertone. CHASING FASHION & TALKING BOXES yesterday that - today this - another jargon - Social Cohesion created by whom?
Social Capital it’s a religion on its own! Conform to the rhetoric of Puppeteers queue for a ticket - “My lad, quite expensive I must say!” enter the arena - a clown’s laughter the circus master’s lightning whip
think
outside the box - drum the spirit free! Continuing, my investigation also raises questions about the apparent lack of cooperation and coordination between international organisations, which may result in a potentially competitive win-lose attitude, consequently damaging rather than actually promoting social cohesion. I have also presented data15 that infer that systems can become bankrupt and develop a life form of their own, often independent of the actual intentions and sanctions of their member states. However, acknowledging that there are many people in international organisations who have real and honest intentions and who do excellent work under very difficult conditions. Issues of transparency (procedural, financial and types of conditions /contracts /agreements) and trust become a real concern for local organisations and it is the people for whom these interventions are intended who may suffer. Joseph Stiglitz (2002) and Catherine Odora Hoppers (1998) and my own research16 highlights international organisational culture /ethos /ethics / spirituality /consciousness and questioning whether there is a kind of unwritten policy governing the international system; wanting the world to be run by the powerful in a particular way. The suggestion is that the developing world is contained and that there might be a peculiar double-bind at work, supporting Foucault’s theoretical power-knowledge-discourse argument. Therefore, if international organisations claim that they are in the business of promoting social cohesion, I propose that they should work towards ensuring international cooperation and coordination, and that their interventions reflect a high ethical consciousness. They should guard against power (plays) and political processes that could sabotage deeper sustenance of social cohesion. The challenge for international organisations is to develop social cohesion through education, and not to continue with games of truth & power-plays turned against themselves & each other …outplayed (Roger Deacon, 1996 and Nilson Herman, 1998). The above discussion and poems also flows into the next subtitle…. International contenders: the dance of emperors, gladiators17 and the social capital wave…My predetermined scholarship title required me to investigate the role of international organisations in developing social cohesion through education. I therefore started to explore what some major international organisations might have to say about this in policy and through country case studies (web and literature research and some observations and interviews in Bosnia & Herzegovinia, South Africa, Nortern Ireland and UNESCO Paris). I soon became disillusioned and it seemed as if social cohesion has very much been used as a slogan, political rhetoric and to secure international contracts18. I also notice the influence, confusion and anomaly between social cohesion and social capital (international organistions as the World Bank use social capital in relation to investment, financial and economical advancement / development). Without going into a discussion here, Colleta and Cullen (2000) proposes the following multidimensional view of how social capital, social cohesion and other factors as conflict, etc. may intersect. In short, social capital can be understood as social networks, informed by trust, which enable practices of reciprocity (as introduced by James Coleman [1988] and Pierre Bourdieu [1888] and taken further by Robert Putnam [1993, 1995, 2000]). Though, working against social cohesion, social capital is also criticized for being gender, colour / ethnic and disability blind and has been accused of creating more exclusion than inclusion regarding such dimensions (John Field, Tom Schuller and Stephen Brouwn, 2000: 248). I also argue a sexual orientation blindness19 and calls for a caution against a misrepresentation and ‘pathologising’ of youth ‘anti-social behaviour’ (alcohol, drugs, violence, graffiti, vandalism), youth at risk, youth gangs, ‘school drop-outs’, etc. which only further exclude, isolate, alienate and negatively categorise young people ‘as the problem’ contributing to social breakdown (for example see Hill & Wright, 2003:282-297; Crawford & Newburn, 2002:476-495 and Vaughan, 2000:347-366). Young people is our future and we need to change our views and approach; giving them their voice back and platforms to assert themselves with confidence, self-esteem, dignity and hope for a better future. I therefore ask: why do we underestimate the potential and resilience of our young people? For example, Mamphela Ramphele (2002) in ‘Steering by the starts: being young in South Africa’, provides an inspiring window to listen to young people and to understand their lives. Graca Machel (1996 & 2000) has also ‘raised the status, awareness and plight’ of child soldiers, refugee children, the abuse of children in war situations and the risk of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation of girls in the midst of armed conflict20. Disappointedly, I have also noticed a ‘devaluation’ of the above two authors groundbreaking work and may I speculate that it is because they are strong black African women who does not single-mindedly support nor imitate the western social capital-ism, but instead embrace the African UBUNTU philosophy?21 Edwards & Foley, and Skocpol (in Andy Green and John Preston, 2001:260), further ads that social capital provides a distinctly romantic view of society devoid of power, politics and conflict. The reality is that social networks are not equal, accessible and inclusive of all and are often formed on personal associations and business terms by those who have financial capital and power to dominate and determine how these social networks are formed, may develop and who may participate on what terms. Therefore social capital may also serve to underpin social hierarchies and create new sources of inequality (John Field, et.al., 2000:245). Jan Scholte (2002:15-16) therefore indicates that the negative outcomes of neoliberalism have arisen in respect of social cohesion: “More generally, the neoliberal premise that social relations boil down to individuals competing in a marketplace undermines collective spirit and mutual support. This social fragmentation has occurred particularly in larger society, but also in relations among intimates.22” There seem to be some parallels regarding some of the above dimensions, especially reading social cohesion from a feminist perspective. I have to agree with Selma Sevenhuijsen (1998:2 & 6), that it is in fact a distressing activity “…not only because of its hidden suppositions, but also because there are so many silences and omissions where speech and reflection would be due. … Among the undertheorized factors are not only the different faces of power and the role of gender and care but also the moral dimensions of trust and distrust. … It is indeed the triangle of dependency, power and vulnerability that is conspicuously absent in dominant theories…”. Her article has been the first and only reference, that I have been able to trace, making this link between social cohesion, feminism and malestream theories23. She also refers to the work of the American philosopher Anette Baier, and “the potential contribution of the feminist ethics of care to the current discussions on trust and social cohesion, and about the need to interpret care in the context of citizenship.”(Selma Sevenhuijsen, 1998:2). Joan Tronto and Selma Sevenhuijsen (1998:11) have also proposed “to see care as a practice, that implies a set of core values like attentativeness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness.” I further argue that this implies that social cohesion is innately about the actual practice of so-called ‘soft skills’ and living out a set of core values that include those mentioned above and for example what is signified through the UBUNTU practice and philosophy mentioned earlier (though not excluded to these only). There have been attempts to bring the social capital debate down to education and social cohesion, and the critique by Andy Green (et.al., 2001), Murray Print and David Coleman (2003), and the international educational case studies of Stephen Heyneman (2000 & 2003:2243-2250) stands out. For example, I support the following comments by Andy Green (et.al., 2001):
In a recent report, Andy Green, John Preston, and Ricardo Sabates (2003) state that educational inequalities are a major factor in the lack of social cohesion. They continue saying that in creating a more cohesive society, we will require policies that will narrow gaps in educational outcomes across the country as well as policies which focus on individual skills. Stephan Heyneman (2000:186) also suggests that social cohesion is a necessary and universal objective within the context of the 21st century. Education can only contribute successfully in conjunction with other organisational pillars, namely, social, political and commercial. Stephan Heyneman & Sonja Todoric-Bebic claims that educational mechanisms can, therefore, lower social tension and help achieve social cohesion25: …regardless of the emphasis placed on social cohesion in different regions, one element appears to be true throughout: countries, faced with a tendency to splinter, use public education to reduce the risk of that happening (Heyneman & Todoric-Bebic., 2000:146). Yin-YangDaoism and the Tsu, Lao in Tao Te Ching, advocate that all things are seen as parts of a whole and that no entity can ever be isolated from its relationship to other entities; no thing can exist in and of itself. There is a fundamental oneness of all phenomena and the embeddedness of individual and societies in the cyclical processes of nature. There are no absolutes, rather that everything is relative, flexible and changeable. Yin and Yang must, necessarily, contain within themselves the possibility of opposition and change. Each makes up for what the other lacks, and the wholeness of the world would be incomplete if there were a deficiency of either. Together the Yin and Yang are depicted as a circle, one half dark and the other half light; within the dark half there is a small light circle, and within the light, a small dark one. This suggests that, though opposites, there is a necessary relationship between the two; that is, Yin exists in Yang and Yang exists in Yin. This changing combination of negative and positive, dark and light, cold and hot which keeps the world spinning creates Ch'i (energy) or the life giving force of the universe. The two sides of the symbol are not static; but, rather, they stand as a rolling circle encompassing the other as it moves through time, space, and dimension. The circle of the opposite element in the center of this flow is called "The Seed of Change"; representing that everything within the universe has the power to change it's own direction during it's life span.26 During the 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), the logo, put forward by the South African Government, is an artistic interpretation of the "Yin Yang", the traditional Chinese black and white symbol representing the two opposing but complementing fundamental forces of life. For the Durban Conference, multiple shades of grey and artistic movement were added to the traditional Yin Yang to emphasize the diverse geographic, cultural and racial origins of human beings and to symbolize a more dynamic and evolving society. The logo is supported by an oblique as a basis to support the Yin Yang. This axis represents the traditional globe and adds the idea of a compass depicting the way forward – therefore charting a course based on the principles of non-discrimination, tolerance and diversity. It embodies the concept that diversity, rather than antagonism, is enriching, and that the different peoples of the world complement each other. …symbolizing that we are all one human family.27 The Eastern philosophies and traditions therefore ad a uniqueness of seeing and interpreting the world and transferring these ideas to the social cohesion discourse and facilitating broader and deeper understanding. This made me think of John O'Donohue's Eternal Echoes: Exploring Our Hunger to Belong (2000) that touched a resonating chord. In essence, social cohesion is about belonging and asks: What binds people together?28 John O'Donohue mentions some shadow elements that threatens our broader and deeper sense of belonging: We are on a runaway train, bedazzled by technology, a postmodern culture, consumerism and the functionalist mind. We are indeed creating and choosing our own prisons! Though, fundamentally we know: belonging is much more, deeper and profound. It is about spiritual connectedness, community and consciousness! We therefore really hear the inward music, but we are all dancing to it, nevertheless (Rumi). The Canadian Policy Research Network and their Social Cohesion Network, and the Strategic Research and Analysis at the Department of Canadian Heritage have done more than five years of social cohesion related research. Drawing on their work and integrating their definitions29 social cohesion could be seen as a ongoing process and deals with bipolar dimensions of: belonging / isolation, inclusion / exclusion, participation / non-involvement, recognition / rejection, legitimacy / illegitimacy, equality / inequality, reciprocity, trust, hope and shared values. On an individual level, people can therefore challenge and ‘interrogate’ themselves where and why I/they/we place ourselves (and being placed by others) on these dimensions (e.g. regarding transformation and reconciliation), but also between communities and individuals from diverse backgrounds, perspectives and privilege. Their interpretations also seems to support the theoretical streams of Ëmile Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity and may fall within the consensus / control model where aspects of change and conflict seems to be ignored. Paul Bernard (1999) has also developed the following typology on the above-mentioned dimensions:
This characteristic nature of Western thinking and the bipolar or binary nature of social cohesion dimensions brings about “the discursive power of dualistic thinking, which strives on thinking in terms of opposites and hierarchies and on constructing an object by delineating it from what it is not.” (Selma Sevenhuijsen, 1998:5). The unfortunate reality is therefore that education and learning has and still is been dominated by left brain rational thinking, analysis and development, while right-brain creative, intuitive and aesthetics learning and education are neglected or devalued30. This also refers to the Cartesian error of separateness, dualities (e.g. bipolar dimension above) by, for example, prioritising rationality, empirical thinking and learning above the aesthetics. Alan Smith (1984:187) comments as follows on the Cartesian Error: “ The characteristic split between Western and Eastern philosophy may be seen as an oppositional relationship between dualism and monism; western dualistic thinking which made possible the splitting of the atom, and Eastern monistic thinking which emphasises underlying unity in the cosmos. Each represents a particular orientation to the world, complete with limitations in perception.” Lesley Saunders (2003:185) also quotes Les Murray: “You think with a double mind. It’s like thinking with both sides of your brain at once. And if you can’t do that, you can’t write poetry.” I support the philosopher Montaigne’s educational interpretation (Alain de Botton, 2001), stating that education and knowledge has not made humans better and wiser. So what is wrong? We need to integrate two categories of knowledge, learning and wisdom (e.g. our body, care, feeding, sex, dignity; spiritual aspirations and multiple intelligence). Wisdom is a broader, more elusive, but more valuable kind of knowledge and includes everything that can help a person to live well, happily and morally (The above also relates to Maria Montessori’s educational methods and philosophy… ). The Pendulum and the Humpty Dumpty Effectthat’s when I saw It It told me the arcane conspiracy… the Pendulum told me: I might slow at one end on my swing then falling back lazily towards what YOU think is the centre I regain speed along the way slashing confidently(?) through the hidden parallelogram of forces that are my destiny…31 Maria van Loggerenberg (1990) developed and worked with a pendulum model to signify ‘The School in the tension-field between commonality and diversity’ [translation from Afrikaans]) in her EdD thesis (and also quoted the mentioned writing of Umberto Eco). I see a pendulum, swaying between commonality /sameness / cohesion / solidarity / unity / harmony & diversity /pluralism /multiculturalism /conflict. Forever negotiating the tension between these variants and on the different layers (from individual / micro to macro / globally) and also trying to see it in a three dimensional spiral, or helix. For example, Sept 11 and the consequent war retaliation may indicate where the pendulum tipped and swayed out of control, causing a Humpty Dumpty Effect. It went over the edge: “Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, couldn’t put Humpty together again.” Could it be that our creative human potential (IQ/EQ/SI) can not constructively manage these events as the shadow sides became to strong and cause to much destruction / damage / havoc / hindrance / hurt… and seen as a “Clash of Civilisations and a remaking of World Order” (Samual P. Huntington, 1996) and / or a “end of history” (Francis Fukuyama, 1992). Looking back in history, I also ask: what really brought, for example, the ancient Mayan and Egyptian civilisations to a fall? Does the mirror reflect any of these cracks today? Or are we like Humpty Dumpty’s?: “Little did we know how limited and distorted our views had become, and how much we were not seeing because of our walls” (Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, 1996:20-22). The pendulum allows us to move away of only considering the theoretical streams of Ëmile Durkheim which fall within the consensus / control model, and to consider aspects of change and conflict, including the dynamic interplay (swing and spiral) between conflict / change and order / control. Yüklə 217,86 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||
