Broken societies: Inequality, cohesion and the middle-class dream

‘There is no evidence that the ethos of a people can be changed according to plan. It is one thing to engineer consent by the techniques of mass manipulation; to change a people’s fundamental view of the world is quite a different thing, perhaps especially if the change is in the direction of a more complicated and demanding morality’. (Edward Banfield in 1958)

Christian Larsen writes in 2013: The intriguing finding is that the share of ‘trusters’ has decreased dramatically in the US and UK. In 1959, 56 per cent of British respondents said that most people can be trusted; in the latest World Value Survey, this figure was down to 30 per cent. In 1960, 55 percent of Americans said that most people can be trusted; now it is 35 per cent. In Denmark and Sweden, by contrast, the share of ‘trusters’ has increased. In Denmark, it shot up from 47 per cent in 1979 to 76 per cent in 2008 (the highest level ever measured in any country). In Sweden, the share went up from 58 per cent in 1981 to 68 per cent in the latest World Value Survey.

What explains this divergence? What socioeconomic changes have shaken these countries from stable levels of trust? Why have American and British people become less trusting and Danes and Swedes more so? My answer is that the level of economic inequality within a society profoundly shapes how we perceive the trustworthiness of fellow citizens.

* those in the middle of society are seen as having little to win and a lot to lose by cheating. Why would they risk the reputational damage of being caught cheating? Anthropological studies support this notion: ‘It is those in the middle of the social spectrum, vying with one another for slight precedence in social affairs, who are most concerned about gossip and most vulnerable to its consequences.’ Again, in contrast, those less concerned about gossip ‘tend to be persons who are insulated from the social, political, and economic consequences of gossip either by their wealth … or by their accepted marginal social status’ (Merry 1997: 48).

* US data shows that those who are optimistic about the future are much more likely to trust fellow citizens than pessimists…

* social cohesion, especially as measured as trust in unknown fellow citizens, is primarily a cognitive phenomenon. Trust and distrust are judgments depending on citizens’ perceptions of their society…

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on Broken societies: Inequality, cohesion and the middle-class dream

What Is Social Cohesion?

Christian Albrecht Larsen writes:

* I suggest that we define social cohesion as the belief held by citizens of a given nation-state that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other… The very discussion of social cohesion often implies its absence and, even more specifically, the decline of social cohesion. I suggest that we label the decline of social cohesion “social erosion”, which we then can define as fewer citizens in a given nation-state having the belief that they share a moral community that enable them to trust each other…

* In a modern globalized and multicultural world, it is difficult and problematic to cultivate a similarity of mind.

* The shift from pre-modern to modern societies can according to Giddens (1990) be described as a shift from embeddedness to disembeddedness (Giddens 1990). In such a situation, trust becomes a fundamental precondition for the ontological safety for the individual, as when by simply taking the bus you have to trust in the abilities of the experts who invented the bus, in those of the unknown bus driver, and those of all the other unknown drivers on the road. One can argue that in a “risk society” (Beck 1992) many risks can only be overcome by placing trust in unknown fellow citizens and the roles they fulfill in the social system as policemen and women, social workers, bank advisors and countless others. Even more convincing is the argument that trust in unknown fellow citizens, besides influencing individuals ability to cope with modernity, is crucial for the functioning of modern institutions such as the market, democracy, and the state…

* If we return to the definition of social cohesion provided above – the belief held by citizens of a given nation-state that they share a moral community – the point is that we are now able to specify the most important aspect of the content of the “shared moral community”. For modern (or post-modern) societies, the most important aspect is not that citizens believe they share the same religion, family values, attitude towards homosexuality or other ideals; for the everyday operation of highly differentiated societies, the most important aspect of social cohesion is that citizens believe they share the norm of not cheating each other. And fortunately, a number of international surveys allow us to measure this pivotal aspect of social cohesion.

* The overall conclusion is that no matter what part of the world one studies, one only finds few hightrust countries. So despite the importance given to trust by sociology, political science and economics, the conclusion is that by 2008-2014 the most common situation is that citizens around the globe display very little trust in their fellow citizens.

* It is well-established in previous trust research that levels in social trust are “sticky”, i.e. there is simply no quick fix to increase the level of social trust in a country.

* trust in fellow citizens has found to be rather stable over the life course. As one grows up in a given society, one forms a basic understanding of this society and it citizens. And these basic impressions from the socialization in youth are hard to shake (Uslaner 2002). This is one of the most common ways to explain the stickiness over time within countries as well as well as the stickiness among migrants (in the US context trust levels of country of origin have been found to have effects across many generations, Uslaner 2008, however, different results have been found from the Nordic context, Dinesen 2012).

Thus, when overall trust levels in a society increases overtime it is often caused by the coming a new generation with more faith in the trustworthiness of fellow citizens and the dying of a generation with less faith in fellow citizens. And the other way around, a decline in overall trust levels over time is typically caused by the coming of a new generation with low social trust and the dying of a generation with higher social trust. The classic example is the US, the best analyzed case of a decline in social trust… the American decline in trust is primarily caused by younger generations having less trust.

* Banfield might actually be right that… “there is no evidence that the ethos of a people can be changed according to plan”.

* Policy relevant implications and questions:

• Similarity of mind is difficult and problematic to create in diverse multicultural and highly differentiated societies. However, a shared perception of unknown fellow citizens being trustworthy is highly relevant in order to make such societies work.
• A shared perception of fellow citizens being trustworthy is not easily achieved. Such “societal glue” is unlikely to be created by societies simply being wealthier. On the country, the increased economic inequality often attached to economic progress is likely to lower trust levels.
• Social trust in diverse multicultural and highly differentiated societies is dependent on collective political actions aiming at creating a coherent society; this is an ongoing nation building process. Pivotal in this nation building process are a moderation of economic inequalities and the establishment of a uncorrupt state institutions.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on What Is Social Cohesion?

National Identity & Social Cohesion

Here is a 2021 paper by Christian Albrekt Larsen:

* [Hans] Kohn’s distinction had its roots in Meineke’s (1970[1907]) distinction between “staatsnation” (state nation) and “kulturnation” (culture nation). Kohn’s basic argument was that in Western Europe (his examples were France, the UK, The
Netherlands and Switzerland), the borders of the state were settled prior to the rise of nationalism, which created a strong focus on the new democratic procedures that could legitimize the existing state. Nationalism therefore contained a narrative about turning oppressed inhabitants into citizens. In a less positive interpretation, Tilly calls it a “state-led nationalism” where “rulers who spoke in a nation’s name successfully demanded that citizens identify themselves with that nation and subordinate other interests to those of the state” (Tilly 1994:133). In contrast, the borders in Eastern Europe were settled after the rise of nationalism, which created a strong focus on the ethnic/cultural dimension of nationhood. Tilly calls it “state-seeking nationalism” where “representative of some population that currently did not have collective control of a state claimed an autonomous political status, or even a separate state, on the ground that the population had a distinct, coherent cultural identity” (Tilly 1994:133). Kohn used the terms “Western” and “Eastern” both to denote the
geographic locations of the various ideas of the nation (Kohn drew the line between the area west of the Rhine and the areas east of the Rhine) and to denote two different ideal types of perceptions of nationhood.

* most contemporary scholars find it useful to replace Kohn’s dichotomy with either 1) a continuum from “civic/Western/political” at the one end to “ethnic/Eastern/cultural” at the other or 2) a two-dimensional solution. Those in favor of a continuum often cite Anthony Smith for the argument in his seminal 1991 book that “… every nationalism contains civic and ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms. Sometimes civic and territorial elements predominate; at other times it is the ethnic and vernacular components that are emphasized”…

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off on National Identity & Social Cohesion

Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?

I’m thinking about moving to Sydney.

If my growth in Orthodox Judaism is my number one priority, then there is no question I should stay in LA. The Los Angeles Orthodox Jewish community is about 30 times the size of the one in Sydney. If I want to go to a great shiur, I have more opportunity to do that in LA than in Sydney. But my growth in Orthodox Judaism has not been my number one priority for many years. It has been supplanted by my quest for emotional sobriety, where I find more help from the 12-step approach than from Orthodox Judaism. As a result, I no longer spend my mornings studying Talmud, I usually spend my mornings on 12-step meetings and 12-step phone calls and 12-step prayer, study and meditation. Over the past five years or so, I’ve spent about twice as much time in my 12-step work compared to my time in Orthodox Judaism.

Los Angeles has more of a 12-step culture than Sydney, but I don’t rely on meetings and 12-step culture to stay emotionally sober. I get that from 12-step work, which I can do anywhere.

An Orthodox shul I love is 100 times more important to me than a 12-step meeting I love. I would not want to do Orthodox Judaism virtually, but I am happy to attend virtual 12-step meetings.

I would not live anywhere without a strong Orthodox Jewish community, and Sydney has that. I like the shuls, I like the Jews, and I like the rabbis.

My choice about where to live might come down to how I feel in Sydney compared to how I feel in LA.

How I would talk to a friend contemplating this type of decision? My questions to him would be about income, employment, family, friends, community, relative happiness level, health.

There’s no question that walking down the street, riding public transport, going shopping, hanging out at the beach or at social amenities is a far happier experience in Sydney than in Los Angeles. There’s virtually no crime and no graffiti in eastern Sydney and little social dysfunction. There’s also no question that far more innovations occur in LA than in Sydney. There’s no question that there are far more people at the top of their profession in LA than in Sydney. There is more of a writer community in LA than in Sydney. There is more of an entertainment industry in LA than in Sydney. The future is built in places such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, not in Sydney.

I’m far more likely to run into a poet, a novelist, a movie director, or an elite professor in Los Angeles than in Sydney.

There’s far more going on in LA than in Sydney. The news in Australia is boring because not much happens here.

If my personal ambition is my number one priority, I would stay in LA.

I have an approximately equal number of friends in LA and in Sydney (because I grew up two hours drive north of Sydney and many of my childhood mates now live in Sydney).

I’d rather interact with strangers in Australia than in American big cities because we are more likely down under to have a similar understanding of right and wrong. Dealing with bureaucrats is a more pleasant experience in Australia. In Australia, you feel like the government is on your side. In America, not so much.

Over the past two days, for my first time in Australia on this trip, I’ve intensely missed my LA life.

Half my time in Australia, I’ve worn my yarmulka and half the time I’ve gone bareheaded. I feel more connected to Aussies when I’m bareheaded and more connected to Yiddishkeit when I wear my kit.

I get most of my energy from connecting with other people. Compared to America, it is easier for me to connect to others in Australia because we have more in common. On the other hand, I get tremendous energy from my bonds in Orthodox Judaism and there is more opportunity for that in LA than in Sydney.

I feel more energized in Australia than I normally do in LA (because I’m more connected to my fellow Australians than I am to my fellow Americans), but much of that could be novelty, and it might not last.

There’s far more of a sense of let’s do it for Australia down here than there is a sense of let’s do it for America in the States. Americans are more outwardly patriotic but Australians are more cohesive.

When I first moved to LA in 1994, I loved exploring the city, but that thrill has largely gone over the past 25 years. I’m excited now about exploring Sydney. I wonder how long that would last?

There’s more diversity and less cohesion and volunteering in Sydney than elsewhere in Australia.

I was just in Tannum Sands for three weeks and I loved being around family, but I missed Jews. I couldn’t live anywhere without a strong Jewish community and an Orthodox shul where I felt at home.

CNN reports Sept. 21, 2021:

(CNN) — Safety has long been a paramount concern for travelers when it comes to deciding which destination to visit.
But the world has been turned on its head in recent years due to the global pandemic and the notion of exactly what makes somewhere “safe” has changed significantly.
This may help to explain the shake up at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Safe Cities Index (SCI,) which ranks 60 international destinations on digital security, health security, infrastructure, personal security, as well as environmental security, a new category for this year.
While Asian cities like Tokyo, Singapore and Osaka have continuously occupied the top spots year after year, it’s a European destination that holds the number one position for 2021.
Copenhagen has been named the world’s safest city for the first time, scoring 82.4 points out of 100 in the annual report.
Denmark’s capital jumped from joint eighth place in 2019 to the top of the list, largely thanks to the introduction of an environmental security section, which the city scored particularly well in, along with personal security.
“One key factor that makes Copenhagen such a safe city is its low crime rate, currently at its lowest level in more than a decade,” Lars Weiss, lord mayor of Copenhagen, says in the report.
“Copenhagen is also characterized by great social cohesion and a relatively narrow wealth gap. It is a mixed city where both the cleaning assistant and the CEO meet each other at the local supermarket and have their kids in the same school.
“This is one of the very cornerstones of Danish culture, and it contributes greatly to the high levels of trust and safety that we benefit from.”
Canada’s Toronto just missed out on the top spot, taking second place with 82.2 points, while Singapore was third with 80.7 points.
Although Sydney came fourth, with 80.1 points, the Australian city topped the digital security category, while 2019 winner Tokyo was awarded 80.0 points, putting the Japanese city in fifth place.

Social cohesion interests me. I keep talking about it on my show. To cohere means to make whole. Australia, England, France, Germany, Japan are among the countries that are far more cohesive than the United States. On the other hand, Orthodox Judaism in America forms a more cohesive community than all these countries except perhaps Germany and Japan.

Christian Albrecht Larsen says: “I suggest that we define social cohesion as the belief held by citizens of a given nation-state that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other.”

Posted in Australia, Los Angeles | Comments Off on Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now?

G-Day Brisbane!

https://www.quora.com/Which-parts-of-Australia-are-considered-redneck-areas-that-are-similar-to-the-Deep-South-of-the-USA

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tell-tale-signs-brisbane-is-still-a-hick-town.1086488/page-4

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/10194468/How-Brisbane-stopped-being-a-redneck-wonderland

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-is-just-a-big-country-town-after-all-20100411-s0ic.html

https://www.peopleconnexion.com/why-brisbane-is-australias-most-underrated-city-and-next-rail-hotspot/

https://sitchu.com.au/brisbane/neighbourhood-watch/best-places-to-live-in-the-world-brisbane

https://osheabuilders.com.au/9-reasons-for-brisbane/

With my sister and my Uncle Don Booth (mom’s side).

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on G-Day Brisbane!