Social Cohesion in 2025: A New Zealand Perspective

My hypothesis on social cohesion being a spectrum—and why rethinking this concept matters as we navigate what promises to be a complex and messy 2025.

This week, I wrote a paper for a project at Te Herenga Waka, which prompted me to revisit a theory I've been developing about how we define and think about social cohesion. This feels particularly relevant as we step cautiously into what promises to be a politically messy 2025.

While refining my PhD research proposal last year, I kept circling back to a hypothesis about different types of social cohesion. While this idea ultimately didn't make it into my research design—it was more philosophical in nature and would have taken my research in an unintended direction—it's a concept I keep thinking about and I wanted to share it here.

I propose that social cohesion exists on a spectrum, creating various outcomes rather than being a single, unified concept. The current tendency to define it in purely positive, aspirational terms doesn't accurately reflect how we interact with each other or how our identity groups engage with government, or is even clear as a single, aspirational goal, if that is the definition we are using. This lack of critical thought around this term creates unreasonable, unclear, and unrealistic expectations for government, and I think for us as a growing diverse population. This hypothesis could help explain how to improve the declining trust in government, regardless of which party holds power, as well as our declining trust between each other.

Social cohesion isn’t just a feel-good concept about everyone getting along

It’s about how different groups, with different agendas, expectations, and values, interact and trust each other—both with each other and with the institutions that shape our lives. We currently define a socially cohesive society as one in which all individuals and groups have a sense of:

1. belonging—a sense of being part of the community, trust in others and respect for law and human rights;

2. inclusion—equity of opportunities and outcomes in work, income, education, health and housing;

3. participation—involvement in social and community activities and in political and civic life;

4. recognition—valuing diversity and respecting differences; and

5. legitimacy—confidence in public institutions.¹

Photo by Austin Kirk on Unsplash

My hypothesis challenges this definition, arguing that there are different types of social cohesion, depending on how strong or weak those interactions are and whether they produce positive or negative outcomes.

First, there is strong social cohesion that creates positive outcomes

For example, think of the Chief Executives of the public service, a group that is 90% white, New Zealand-born, and largely homogeneous in background, values, and goals. They probably trust each other implicitly and can make decisions faster than if this group were more diverse. That’s strong cohesion with positive outcomes. But what happens when this cohesion excludes other voices, especially in a multicultural democracy like ours? Suddenly, what looks like trust and efficiency from the inside can feel like exclusion or even inequity from the outside.

Then there’s strong cohesion with negative outcomes.

Think of organised crime groups or online groups, like the ones we here about on Telegram that are highly organised around goals such as the Parliment Protest or the USA Capitol Riots. They’re cohesive, with very high levels of solidarity, trust, a strong sense of belonging, and efficiency—but their goals are destructive, undermining trust in broader societal institutions.

And at the other end of the spectrum, we have weak cohesion

This can also swing either way: positive, like a diverse urban community that finds stability through negotiation, or negative, like a fragmented protest group that struggles to achieve meaningful outcomes.

So in a nutshell, social cohesion is a matrix where strength and weakness interact with positive and negative outcomes to generate distinct types of social cohesion. This framework encompasses all groups rather than selectively engaging with only those deemed "legitimate."

This selective engagement particularly troubles me when I observe governments dismissing certain groups based on their political agenda, which I have seen the Left and the Right do at similarly problematic degrees. Such behaviour represents a fundamental failure of responsibility among elected officials. Once in power, their mandate extends beyond their base to encompass every citizen under their governance—regardless of voting preferences. This broader social purpose demands a more inclusive approach to maintaining cohesion across all segments of society.

Understanding social cohesion as a multifaceted matrix rather than a simple ideal challenges us to think differently about how we build trust in our society. When we acknowledge that strong cohesion can produce both positive and negative outcomes, we're better equipped to address the growing strains in our social fabric. For our democracy to thrive, we need leadership that recognises and engages with all forms of social cohesion, not just the comfortable, positive versions we prefer to see. The evidence is clear: societies with higher levels of interpersonal trust enjoy greater political participation and stronger economic growth. But achieving this requires honest engagement with all groups, even those whose cohesion manifests in ways that challenge our institutions. Only by understanding and addressing these complex dynamics can we hope to rebuild trust across our increasingly diverse society.

1. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/part-9-social-cohesion-and-embracing-diversity/introduction/