Mmm. It is certainly a sad state we are in. I think a large part of the problem has immersed with all this focus on "identity". We have analyzed and broken society down into 'groups' and 'sub-groups' for so many years that now most people feel they identify with/as something or another. Be it political, racial, economic class, career status etc. When in reality, each human being, left alone without this external peppering of 'definitions' is able to be an agent of rolling ideas and perspectives relative only to the events of the day. Free to be individuals who use 'discernment' rather than group think. That's the psychological element of the problem with our lack of cohesion in my view. The physical contributor is the luxury of our times. The tech world is advanced, we embrace the physical "easy". I live in a valley where in the 1920's there was a make-shift township of 1200 people building a 100km railway line through steep hill-country. The men were digging tunnels with shovels all day. The women were raising children, lighting fires and cooking. There was a light bulb in each hut and one tap with cold water for every ten working families. The stories from the time are just gorgeous, real community, sport games and school events. The reality is, they didn't have the luxury of not taking care of their neighbour's needs, everyone needed the support of the others and they relied on it. I guess a degree of hardship can sort out our hearts. What is true and good and real is again put into perspective in times of shared struggle, where survival and celebration of the small joys are the focus. There was also no one writing stories about how everyone should "identify" or what "group" they could pigeon hole themselves into. These modern ideas of the privileged and non-privileged set off a toxic bomb and foster either a sense of guilt or a sense of victimhood and entitlement. Those seeds of misery. I don't have the answer either. Except to say that if we took the internet and newspapers away tomorrow, all this division would most likely fade away back into a sense of community. It is important to teach our young people that they do not have to identify as anything. They are more than entitled to be shifting, changing, growing, developing learning beings for the rest of their lives without a label on their forehead or back. To wake up brand new each day. When it comes to racial division... we should just stop talking about race. It is not the most important thing about a person. As Martin Luther King said.... its "the content of our character." Our actions define our character, its in 'what' we 'do'. If we don't feed the homeless, care for our old, protect our children or treat each other as equals, then we are surely lost. Too much focus on 'identity' leads to an excess of pride, which fosters narcistic self-righteousness. We are all equals. We need to again foster this idea. It starts with the government and the media and it must be taught in the home. Thanks for firing my brain up this morning Natalia. I share your deep concerns and hold a large sadness for the unfortunate state of our human family.
Thank you, Johanna, for such a heartfelt and thought-provoking response. You’ve really captured the tension between individual identity and the need for community, which is at the heart of many of these challenges. I agree that the focus on breaking society down into groups and labels has often led to division rather than cohesion. The irony is that these divisions, meant to give people a sense of belonging, can sometimes end up isolating us more.
Your reflection on past communities and how hardship can bring people together resonates deeply. There’s something powerful about shared struggle creating bonds that transcend identity categories. I also appreciate your point about the role of luxury and convenience in allowing us to focus on these differences rather than on the basic human need to take care of one another.
I don’t know if simply removing the discussions around identity would solve the problem, but I do think we need to balance the recognition of diversity with an emphasis on what connects us as human beings. Your thoughts on teaching young people that they don’t have to be defined by any one label are especially important in a time when identity seems so central to how we relate to the world.
Thank you again for engaging with this topic so thoughtfully. These are complex issues without easy answers, but conversations like this can help us move toward a more nuanced understanding. I’d love to continue this dialogue as we all try to navigate these challenges together.
Diversity is a challenge to social cohesion. We are built to ‘cohere’ with people like us. The best outcome, if diversity leads the way, is a state that mechanically maintains the rules that all groups get to play by.
Thank you, John, for your comment. You’ve raised a critical point about the inherent tension between diversity and social cohesion. There’s definitely truth to the idea that we naturally gravitate toward those who share similar values, backgrounds, or perspectives, and therefore create homogenous, isolated groups. However, as our societies become more diverse, the challenge is finding ways to build bridges rather than walls between different groups.
I think you’re spot on in suggesting that if diversity is to flourish, we need strong institutions and frameworks that ensure fairness and allow everyone to coexist. The key question, though, is whether merely “maintaining the rules” is enough to foster a truly cohesive society. Can we find ways to go beyond just coexisting and actually build connections that respect our differences while still finding common ground?
This tension is at the heart of my research. I’m exploring whether the traditional models we rely on are still effective—or if we need new approaches that acknowledge diversity without oversimplifying the complexity of creating a united society. Thanks again for your insight. I’d love to know more about your perspective on how we might navigate these challenges.
Hi Nat. I think ‘building connections that respect our differences while still finding common ground’, means facilitating people in their own groups to get on with their lives and to rub along with people in other groups.
From this perspective “maintaining the rules” is a huge success, not a “merely”. Groups need to feel that the system works well enough and that they are not particularly disadvantaged. Tammany Hall where the rules were In disarray gave rise to the Dead Rabbits.
‘Cohesion’ beyond the level of rubbing along together may be a wish to reduce difference, not respect it.
Thanks for continuing the conversation – you’ve really got me thinking. You make a solid point that “maintaining the rules” can indeed be a big achievement, especially in a diverse society where the alternative could easily be chaos or fragmentation. If the system works well enough for everyone to feel secure and not unduly disadvantaged, that’s definitely a step in the right direction.
I see what you’re saying about cohesion sometimes being less about embracing difference and more about minimizing it. There’s definitely a tension there between wanting to celebrate diversity and the desire for enough commonality to avoid conflict. Maybe what we’re really aiming for is a balance between giving groups enough autonomy to live according to their own values, while still ensuring they can “rub along” peacefully with others.
Your point about Tammany Hall and the Dead Rabbits is a great example of what happens when the system breaks down – it’s a reminder that when people lose faith in fairness, things can unravel quickly.
I wonder, though, whether there’s room for more than just coexistence. Could we create spaces where different groups not only tolerate each other but actually find value in engaging across lines of difference? Or is that too idealistic in a world where simply keeping things stable is already an achievement?
Would love to hear more of your thoughts on whether deeper forms of cohesion are realistic or even desirable.
Hi Natalia. I like the way you're sharing your PhD journey. One sentence stood out for me: "The idea that all New Zealanders share the same core values simply doesn’t match reality anymore." Did it ever match reality? 1981 was the most violent and divisive moment in NZ in living memory. World history is full of examples of systemic social collapse. But the issues are multiple and complex now, so there's a crisis of belief (who and what to believe), not unlike the 17th C. Does the phrase "all New Zealanders" trouble you? Do we understand "social" similarly? I recommend reading: Walter Scheidel's The Great Leveler; Peter Turchin's End Times.
I was there in 1981 as a participant observer in the Biko group, chased with them by the Red Squad avec long batons towards Dominion Road. Terrifying! (Almost as terrifying, as I understood from my then Haka Party colleagues who were present, as the visit by our Maori Club colleagues.) I can treasure that past now as an exciting time because 2024 is well in that future.
Along the way to now though we had the tensions of Muldoon trying to manage the economy with SMPs and failing, Roger Douglas succeeding while farmers killed themselves and bankers lit cigars with $100 notes and the street where my factory is being ‘for sale’ and ‘for lease’ end to end. Now that was a time.
I don’t remember when the Dawn Raids occurred. Maybe the 70’s, so that might have been earlier.
Unexpectedly after the 90s we had a period with a quiet, emerging prosperity and the overt tensions were right down. It’s taken a couple more decades but now we have the Treaty and te tiriti, Free Speech and Problematic Speech. plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Our basic political structures have proven resilient over time and I think this will continue (much as we may angst over it). And thank goodness because it lets us get on with what we are clearly drawn to most, which is fighting together like a sack of drowning rats.
Thanks for sharing your experience, John! It really brings history to life, especially hearing firsthand what it was like in 1981 with the Biko group and being chased by the Red Squad. It’s sobering to think how those tensions you describe—from Muldoon’s economic struggles to the fallout of Rogernomics—still ripple through today’s debates on social and economic issues.
You’re right—those decades between the late '80s and early 2000s did see a quieter period in terms of overt conflict, but as you note, the underlying issues didn’t disappear. They’ve resurfaced now in new forms: Free Speech versus Problematic Speech, Treaty vs. te Tiriti debates—it’s almost like the same battles are being fought in a different guise, with emerging technologies threatening how we consume the information that shapes our belief systems. Disagreement is as old as time, but what’s different now is how we can be mean-spirited and unwilling to even talk to those we disagree with, creating very complicated political and social issues.
Your point about our basic political structures being resilient is key. Even if they don’t always resolve the core tensions, they allow us to keep engaging with them—sometimes fiercely, like “a sack of drowning rats” (love that analogy).
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Grant! You make a crucial point—did New Zealanders ever really share core values? The myth of universal shared values is comforting, but as you noted, moments like 1981 and the Springbok Tour protests show how fragile that narrative is. The “No Māori, No Tour” movement and the confrontations that followed exposed deep divides over issues like racism and identity, cracking any illusion of consensus.
The phrase “all New Zealanders” does trouble me, especially in policy contexts. We still need ways to talk about us collectively as a nation, but I’m exploring the idea of breaking it down into neighborhood, community, and national levels. We don’t need universal agreement on everything—so where do we engage as a nation, and where don’t we? And what role does policy play in that? Over-simplifying these complexities doesn’t help, but neither does continuing to divide strictly by ethnicity when perhaps geography might be more practical. Who gets included in that “all,” and who doesn’t? It’s a catch-all phrase that often ends up reinforcing exclusion.
You’re right—today’s crisis is also a crisis of belief, with an overload of information and little consensus on what’s credible. Your comparison to the 17th century is spot on—when foundational beliefs were being challenged and redefined.
Thanks heaps for book recommendations. Have you read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson? It offers a fascinating perspective on how nations construct shared identities and the myths that hold them together. I’d love to hear your thoughts if you check it out!
Thanks again for engaging with these ideas—I really appreciate it!
Hi. Yes I have read Imagined Communities. It's very relevant for you! There's related stuff in my recent book, Government and Political Trust. Should be in VUW library. That would save me writing too much on here! Nations are always a work in progress, and things can go terribly wrong. So, what makes them NOT go wrong? You're welcome to stay in touch.
Thanks, Grant! I’ll definitely check out Government and Political Trust—it sounds right up my alley. I completely agree that nations are a constant work in progress, and understanding what keeps them from going off the rails is such a crucial question. I’ll flick you a DM so we can stay in touch and chat more. Appreciate the recommendation!
I very much enjoyed reading this post. Thanks for sharing it.
I am also a PhD scholar working on the social cohesion concept. I have arrived at the opinion that it has become near enough an empty signifier due to the carelessness and inattention to theory in its common deployments; and its usefulness to those wishing to blame the victims of structural violence for their marginalisation. I am in the process of trying to get a theoretical/critical piece published on this topic at the moment but finding it difficult - probably due to the list of reviewers on hand for the topic being people invested in the social cohesion concept in its current "normative, functionalist" and (accidentally) positivist form.
Would be good to have a chat about it sometime maybe.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment—I’m really glad you enjoyed the post. It’s exciting to connect with someone else who’s digging into the complexities of social cohesion, especially with a critical lens.
I completely agree with your observation that the concept of social cohesion has often been used carelessly, sometimes to the point of becoming almost meaningless, a 'psuedo-concpet'. It’s frustrating how it can be co-opted to reinforce the very structures that perpetuate marginalization, rather than challenging them. Your point about it being a tool to blame victims of structural violence really resonates with some of the concerns I’ve been wrestling with in my own research.
I’d love to hear more about your work, especially as you’re navigating the challenges of getting critical perspectives published. It’s tough when the academic environment is so entrenched in the “normative, functionalist” approach, as you put it. I’ve faced some of those same struggles, and it’s part of why I’m so passionate about rethinking these frameworks and pushing for more nuanced conversations. I've recently developed my hypothesis and as part of that I developed a framework to explore them. I'll be publishing it on my Substack in the next few weeks.
I’m definitely up for a chat—where are you based? I'm pretty sure you can flick me a DM through here, or if you are on LinkedIn, I check those chats almost daily, you can find me on there. Or flick em an email to: natalia.albertllorente@vuw.ac.nz
Firstly, great article, thank you for sharing your PhD journey. I think a big part of the issue is that people live in alternate realities so we don't have a clear grip on the society at large. If you ask people what they think the main issues around social cohesion are, they'll each give you vast array of responses. As a starting point I think we all need to think and discuss what the core elements are of a country we want to live in? And unfortunately, not everyone's ideas can be part of that framework - Everyone's opinion matters, but not everyone's opinion is worth platforming, following or enriching in law - there's a fine line there.
I agree with other comments that diversity makes social cohesion more difficult - our cultures and religions frame our world view and therefore how we view right and wrong, which snowballs into the values we want to represent in a society.
Okay so I have too many thoughts and not enough time to logically think them through so I'll summarise:
Ignoring contentious topics and not talking about them (racism, sexism e.g.) will just make them worse
We need to interrogate the balance of power in our society and realise that's a core problem - when the disparity of wealth, health outcomes, housing is so wide you'll never have social cohesion
I don't think social cohesion and capitalism at extreme levels can co-exist
If you want to get a gauge on social cohesion, speak to the people who aren't flourishing and thriving in society, not the ones with assets, resources etc.
And finally, ask yourself who benefits from a lack of social cohesion? While we may argue on forums and have debates at the dinner table, we're ignoring the larger structural issues at hand that have direct impact on everyone's quality and outcomes of life.
Thanks so much for engaging with my article and sharing your thoughts! I completely agree that the variety of perspectives on what social cohesion should look like is both a challenge and a critical part of the conversation. You’re spot on about the need to define what kind of country we actually want to live in, and the reality that not every viewpoint can—or should—be equally represented in the framework we choose.
And as you clearly identified, the tension between diversity and social cohesion is real and complex. As our society is hyper-diverse, the idea that we can all just align on shared values becomes more distant. But I also think it’s that very complexity that makes this conversation so urgent and necessary—pretending those tensions don’t exist or we will all convince the other side to think differently, only deepens the divides.
I really appreciate your thoughts on power imbalances and how they undercut any attempt at genuine social cohesion. It’s hard to talk about a “cohesive society” when people are dealing with vastly different realities, often shaped by economic inequality and systemic injustice. Your suggestion to focus on the experiences of those who aren’t flourishing is crucial—those voices tend to be drowned out by louder and/or more privileged perspectives.
The relationship between capitalism and social cohesion is something I grapple with a lot, and I agree that extreme levels of capitalism can be incompatible with a truly cohesive society. It’s hard to find common ground when the playing field is so uneven from the start. Ill write about my views of social capitalism in a future post, so stand by caller!
Lastly, your question about who benefits from a lack of social cohesion is one we should all be asking. It’s easy to get caught up in debates about culture and values while ignoring the larger structural forces at play. In many ways, those in power have a vested interest in keeping us divided—if we’re busy fighting each other, we’re not questioning the systems that keep inequality in place.
Thanks again for sharing such a nuanced perspective. I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on what a balanced and inclusive framework for social cohesion could look like. This is a conversation that I think we’re only just beginning to scratch the surface of.
A good critique Natalia. There is not much social cohesion now, but there is not much violence either, so there goes that theory. I just read a credible article suggesting that our previous Labour govt conspired to sabotage NZ economy when they lost at the last election. It is obvious that all those Woke left-wingers think that anyone that doesnt agree with them are the deplorables, including National, NZ First, and ACT followers. We see that mainstream Media wouldnt allow Family First christians, or NZ Taxpayers org to run ads in their newspaper, cos they are so deplorable that they dont even want their money. When are these Woke idiots going to wake up and realize that most NZers arent interested in their ideology.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Mark. You’ve touched on some key issues that reflect the broader tensions in New Zealand society. I agree that our social cohesion is more fragile than many realize, and the lack of overt violence doesn’t necessarily mean that all is well. Your point about the political divides and how they are portrayed in the media adds another layer to the conversation.
One of the challenges I see is how strongly entrenched our views have become, whether it's within political ideologies or other societal narratives. It’s easy to fall into "us vs. them" thinking, which, as you highlight, can lead to exclusion or dismissiveness on all sides. My research is trying to explore exactly these tensions—how can we create a society where such stark differences don’t push us further apart?
I hope that by questioning our certainties and being more curious about the perspectives of others, even those we disagree with, we can start finding some common ground. Thanks again for engaging with this topic! Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
Yes, at one level our social cohesion can be seen as a bit thin at the moment, and this can be deeply disconcerting. However, if we take a perspective that says ‘we have been here before, on multiple occasions and it worked out in the end’ then maybe it is not so scary. In fact it might be that this is more like business as usual. The 1860s was scary. The waterfront strikes were scary. Vietnam, Manapouri, the Maruia forest, abortion - these were intense in their own ways at the time as well, and seemed to portend a breakdown in civil society. It didn’t break down then and it is unlikely to break down now. I think it is important to have the fights, preferably out in the open. The Overton window shifts and we find ourselves in a new normal. Or more likely, as time passes, we find ourselves with new factions militating for yet different things. I think that the idea of finding a broad consensus where we are as one people is less useful than a conception that supports (sometimes robust) difference, and the provision of guardrails that allow for uncomfortable disagreement between groups. By and large, in NZ, the contenders stay within the guardrails. This is the political system we are fortunate to have. In one sense, this is something that our polity does in fact come together on. (cf. South America for many decades last century - I had a relative who came perilously close to disappearing in Buenos Aires in the 70s - a family contact with a police Colonel saved the day). I think our NZ system is in rude health, functioning as it should.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment and for bringing in that historical perspective! You’re absolutely right—when we zoom out, we can see that New Zealand has weathered some pretty intense periods of division before, as has the rest of the world for milenia.
I appreciate your framing of “guardrails” that allow for robust, even uncomfortable, disagreement. It’s true that our political system, for all its flaws, does provide those boundaries that keep things from spiraling out of control. That said, I do wonder if the current dynamics—especially with digital media amplifying polarization—are stretching those guardrails more than in the past. But maybe that’s just a sign of the times, and, as you suggest, part of the natural process of evolving toward a “new normal.”
I also agree that striving for a broad consensus might be less realistic than accepting that difference is here to stay—and learning how to navigate it better.
I’d be curious to hear more about your thoughts on how we can better support those guardrails in an increasingly fragmented landscape. How do we ensure that even as new factions emerge, the system remains strong enough to hold it all together?
Thanks again for such a balanced and insightful take—it’s exactly the kind of nuanced conversation I hope Less Certain can foster!
Mmm. It is certainly a sad state we are in. I think a large part of the problem has immersed with all this focus on "identity". We have analyzed and broken society down into 'groups' and 'sub-groups' for so many years that now most people feel they identify with/as something or another. Be it political, racial, economic class, career status etc. When in reality, each human being, left alone without this external peppering of 'definitions' is able to be an agent of rolling ideas and perspectives relative only to the events of the day. Free to be individuals who use 'discernment' rather than group think. That's the psychological element of the problem with our lack of cohesion in my view. The physical contributor is the luxury of our times. The tech world is advanced, we embrace the physical "easy". I live in a valley where in the 1920's there was a make-shift township of 1200 people building a 100km railway line through steep hill-country. The men were digging tunnels with shovels all day. The women were raising children, lighting fires and cooking. There was a light bulb in each hut and one tap with cold water for every ten working families. The stories from the time are just gorgeous, real community, sport games and school events. The reality is, they didn't have the luxury of not taking care of their neighbour's needs, everyone needed the support of the others and they relied on it. I guess a degree of hardship can sort out our hearts. What is true and good and real is again put into perspective in times of shared struggle, where survival and celebration of the small joys are the focus. There was also no one writing stories about how everyone should "identify" or what "group" they could pigeon hole themselves into. These modern ideas of the privileged and non-privileged set off a toxic bomb and foster either a sense of guilt or a sense of victimhood and entitlement. Those seeds of misery. I don't have the answer either. Except to say that if we took the internet and newspapers away tomorrow, all this division would most likely fade away back into a sense of community. It is important to teach our young people that they do not have to identify as anything. They are more than entitled to be shifting, changing, growing, developing learning beings for the rest of their lives without a label on their forehead or back. To wake up brand new each day. When it comes to racial division... we should just stop talking about race. It is not the most important thing about a person. As Martin Luther King said.... its "the content of our character." Our actions define our character, its in 'what' we 'do'. If we don't feed the homeless, care for our old, protect our children or treat each other as equals, then we are surely lost. Too much focus on 'identity' leads to an excess of pride, which fosters narcistic self-righteousness. We are all equals. We need to again foster this idea. It starts with the government and the media and it must be taught in the home. Thanks for firing my brain up this morning Natalia. I share your deep concerns and hold a large sadness for the unfortunate state of our human family.
Thank you, Johanna, for such a heartfelt and thought-provoking response. You’ve really captured the tension between individual identity and the need for community, which is at the heart of many of these challenges. I agree that the focus on breaking society down into groups and labels has often led to division rather than cohesion. The irony is that these divisions, meant to give people a sense of belonging, can sometimes end up isolating us more.
Your reflection on past communities and how hardship can bring people together resonates deeply. There’s something powerful about shared struggle creating bonds that transcend identity categories. I also appreciate your point about the role of luxury and convenience in allowing us to focus on these differences rather than on the basic human need to take care of one another.
I don’t know if simply removing the discussions around identity would solve the problem, but I do think we need to balance the recognition of diversity with an emphasis on what connects us as human beings. Your thoughts on teaching young people that they don’t have to be defined by any one label are especially important in a time when identity seems so central to how we relate to the world.
Thank you again for engaging with this topic so thoughtfully. These are complex issues without easy answers, but conversations like this can help us move toward a more nuanced understanding. I’d love to continue this dialogue as we all try to navigate these challenges together.
Diversity is a challenge to social cohesion. We are built to ‘cohere’ with people like us. The best outcome, if diversity leads the way, is a state that mechanically maintains the rules that all groups get to play by.
Thank you, John, for your comment. You’ve raised a critical point about the inherent tension between diversity and social cohesion. There’s definitely truth to the idea that we naturally gravitate toward those who share similar values, backgrounds, or perspectives, and therefore create homogenous, isolated groups. However, as our societies become more diverse, the challenge is finding ways to build bridges rather than walls between different groups.
I think you’re spot on in suggesting that if diversity is to flourish, we need strong institutions and frameworks that ensure fairness and allow everyone to coexist. The key question, though, is whether merely “maintaining the rules” is enough to foster a truly cohesive society. Can we find ways to go beyond just coexisting and actually build connections that respect our differences while still finding common ground?
This tension is at the heart of my research. I’m exploring whether the traditional models we rely on are still effective—or if we need new approaches that acknowledge diversity without oversimplifying the complexity of creating a united society. Thanks again for your insight. I’d love to know more about your perspective on how we might navigate these challenges.
Hi Nat. I think ‘building connections that respect our differences while still finding common ground’, means facilitating people in their own groups to get on with their lives and to rub along with people in other groups.
From this perspective “maintaining the rules” is a huge success, not a “merely”. Groups need to feel that the system works well enough and that they are not particularly disadvantaged. Tammany Hall where the rules were In disarray gave rise to the Dead Rabbits.
‘Cohesion’ beyond the level of rubbing along together may be a wish to reduce difference, not respect it.
Hi John,
Thanks for continuing the conversation – you’ve really got me thinking. You make a solid point that “maintaining the rules” can indeed be a big achievement, especially in a diverse society where the alternative could easily be chaos or fragmentation. If the system works well enough for everyone to feel secure and not unduly disadvantaged, that’s definitely a step in the right direction.
I see what you’re saying about cohesion sometimes being less about embracing difference and more about minimizing it. There’s definitely a tension there between wanting to celebrate diversity and the desire for enough commonality to avoid conflict. Maybe what we’re really aiming for is a balance between giving groups enough autonomy to live according to their own values, while still ensuring they can “rub along” peacefully with others.
Your point about Tammany Hall and the Dead Rabbits is a great example of what happens when the system breaks down – it’s a reminder that when people lose faith in fairness, things can unravel quickly.
I wonder, though, whether there’s room for more than just coexistence. Could we create spaces where different groups not only tolerate each other but actually find value in engaging across lines of difference? Or is that too idealistic in a world where simply keeping things stable is already an achievement?
Would love to hear more of your thoughts on whether deeper forms of cohesion are realistic or even desirable.
Hi Natalia. I like the way you're sharing your PhD journey. One sentence stood out for me: "The idea that all New Zealanders share the same core values simply doesn’t match reality anymore." Did it ever match reality? 1981 was the most violent and divisive moment in NZ in living memory. World history is full of examples of systemic social collapse. But the issues are multiple and complex now, so there's a crisis of belief (who and what to believe), not unlike the 17th C. Does the phrase "all New Zealanders" trouble you? Do we understand "social" similarly? I recommend reading: Walter Scheidel's The Great Leveler; Peter Turchin's End Times.
I was there in 1981 as a participant observer in the Biko group, chased with them by the Red Squad avec long batons towards Dominion Road. Terrifying! (Almost as terrifying, as I understood from my then Haka Party colleagues who were present, as the visit by our Maori Club colleagues.) I can treasure that past now as an exciting time because 2024 is well in that future.
Along the way to now though we had the tensions of Muldoon trying to manage the economy with SMPs and failing, Roger Douglas succeeding while farmers killed themselves and bankers lit cigars with $100 notes and the street where my factory is being ‘for sale’ and ‘for lease’ end to end. Now that was a time.
I don’t remember when the Dawn Raids occurred. Maybe the 70’s, so that might have been earlier.
Unexpectedly after the 90s we had a period with a quiet, emerging prosperity and the overt tensions were right down. It’s taken a couple more decades but now we have the Treaty and te tiriti, Free Speech and Problematic Speech. plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Our basic political structures have proven resilient over time and I think this will continue (much as we may angst over it). And thank goodness because it lets us get on with what we are clearly drawn to most, which is fighting together like a sack of drowning rats.
Thanks for sharing your experience, John! It really brings history to life, especially hearing firsthand what it was like in 1981 with the Biko group and being chased by the Red Squad. It’s sobering to think how those tensions you describe—from Muldoon’s economic struggles to the fallout of Rogernomics—still ripple through today’s debates on social and economic issues.
You’re right—those decades between the late '80s and early 2000s did see a quieter period in terms of overt conflict, but as you note, the underlying issues didn’t disappear. They’ve resurfaced now in new forms: Free Speech versus Problematic Speech, Treaty vs. te Tiriti debates—it’s almost like the same battles are being fought in a different guise, with emerging technologies threatening how we consume the information that shapes our belief systems. Disagreement is as old as time, but what’s different now is how we can be mean-spirited and unwilling to even talk to those we disagree with, creating very complicated political and social issues.
Your point about our basic political structures being resilient is key. Even if they don’t always resolve the core tensions, they allow us to keep engaging with them—sometimes fiercely, like “a sack of drowning rats” (love that analogy).
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Grant! You make a crucial point—did New Zealanders ever really share core values? The myth of universal shared values is comforting, but as you noted, moments like 1981 and the Springbok Tour protests show how fragile that narrative is. The “No Māori, No Tour” movement and the confrontations that followed exposed deep divides over issues like racism and identity, cracking any illusion of consensus.
The phrase “all New Zealanders” does trouble me, especially in policy contexts. We still need ways to talk about us collectively as a nation, but I’m exploring the idea of breaking it down into neighborhood, community, and national levels. We don’t need universal agreement on everything—so where do we engage as a nation, and where don’t we? And what role does policy play in that? Over-simplifying these complexities doesn’t help, but neither does continuing to divide strictly by ethnicity when perhaps geography might be more practical. Who gets included in that “all,” and who doesn’t? It’s a catch-all phrase that often ends up reinforcing exclusion.
You’re right—today’s crisis is also a crisis of belief, with an overload of information and little consensus on what’s credible. Your comparison to the 17th century is spot on—when foundational beliefs were being challenged and redefined.
Thanks heaps for book recommendations. Have you read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson? It offers a fascinating perspective on how nations construct shared identities and the myths that hold them together. I’d love to hear your thoughts if you check it out!
Thanks again for engaging with these ideas—I really appreciate it!
Hi. Yes I have read Imagined Communities. It's very relevant for you! There's related stuff in my recent book, Government and Political Trust. Should be in VUW library. That would save me writing too much on here! Nations are always a work in progress, and things can go terribly wrong. So, what makes them NOT go wrong? You're welcome to stay in touch.
Thanks, Grant! I’ll definitely check out Government and Political Trust—it sounds right up my alley. I completely agree that nations are a constant work in progress, and understanding what keeps them from going off the rails is such a crucial question. I’ll flick you a DM so we can stay in touch and chat more. Appreciate the recommendation!
Kia ora Natalia,
I very much enjoyed reading this post. Thanks for sharing it.
I am also a PhD scholar working on the social cohesion concept. I have arrived at the opinion that it has become near enough an empty signifier due to the carelessness and inattention to theory in its common deployments; and its usefulness to those wishing to blame the victims of structural violence for their marginalisation. I am in the process of trying to get a theoretical/critical piece published on this topic at the moment but finding it difficult - probably due to the list of reviewers on hand for the topic being people invested in the social cohesion concept in its current "normative, functionalist" and (accidentally) positivist form.
Would be good to have a chat about it sometime maybe.
Paul
Kia ora Paul,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment—I’m really glad you enjoyed the post. It’s exciting to connect with someone else who’s digging into the complexities of social cohesion, especially with a critical lens.
I completely agree with your observation that the concept of social cohesion has often been used carelessly, sometimes to the point of becoming almost meaningless, a 'psuedo-concpet'. It’s frustrating how it can be co-opted to reinforce the very structures that perpetuate marginalization, rather than challenging them. Your point about it being a tool to blame victims of structural violence really resonates with some of the concerns I’ve been wrestling with in my own research.
I’d love to hear more about your work, especially as you’re navigating the challenges of getting critical perspectives published. It’s tough when the academic environment is so entrenched in the “normative, functionalist” approach, as you put it. I’ve faced some of those same struggles, and it’s part of why I’m so passionate about rethinking these frameworks and pushing for more nuanced conversations. I've recently developed my hypothesis and as part of that I developed a framework to explore them. I'll be publishing it on my Substack in the next few weeks.
I’m definitely up for a chat—where are you based? I'm pretty sure you can flick me a DM through here, or if you are on LinkedIn, I check those chats almost daily, you can find me on there. Or flick em an email to: natalia.albertllorente@vuw.ac.nz
Looking forward to connecting more,
Natalia
Firstly, great article, thank you for sharing your PhD journey. I think a big part of the issue is that people live in alternate realities so we don't have a clear grip on the society at large. If you ask people what they think the main issues around social cohesion are, they'll each give you vast array of responses. As a starting point I think we all need to think and discuss what the core elements are of a country we want to live in? And unfortunately, not everyone's ideas can be part of that framework - Everyone's opinion matters, but not everyone's opinion is worth platforming, following or enriching in law - there's a fine line there.
I agree with other comments that diversity makes social cohesion more difficult - our cultures and religions frame our world view and therefore how we view right and wrong, which snowballs into the values we want to represent in a society.
Okay so I have too many thoughts and not enough time to logically think them through so I'll summarise:
Ignoring contentious topics and not talking about them (racism, sexism e.g.) will just make them worse
We need to interrogate the balance of power in our society and realise that's a core problem - when the disparity of wealth, health outcomes, housing is so wide you'll never have social cohesion
I don't think social cohesion and capitalism at extreme levels can co-exist
If you want to get a gauge on social cohesion, speak to the people who aren't flourishing and thriving in society, not the ones with assets, resources etc.
And finally, ask yourself who benefits from a lack of social cohesion? While we may argue on forums and have debates at the dinner table, we're ignoring the larger structural issues at hand that have direct impact on everyone's quality and outcomes of life.
Thanks so much for engaging with my article and sharing your thoughts! I completely agree that the variety of perspectives on what social cohesion should look like is both a challenge and a critical part of the conversation. You’re spot on about the need to define what kind of country we actually want to live in, and the reality that not every viewpoint can—or should—be equally represented in the framework we choose.
And as you clearly identified, the tension between diversity and social cohesion is real and complex. As our society is hyper-diverse, the idea that we can all just align on shared values becomes more distant. But I also think it’s that very complexity that makes this conversation so urgent and necessary—pretending those tensions don’t exist or we will all convince the other side to think differently, only deepens the divides.
I really appreciate your thoughts on power imbalances and how they undercut any attempt at genuine social cohesion. It’s hard to talk about a “cohesive society” when people are dealing with vastly different realities, often shaped by economic inequality and systemic injustice. Your suggestion to focus on the experiences of those who aren’t flourishing is crucial—those voices tend to be drowned out by louder and/or more privileged perspectives.
The relationship between capitalism and social cohesion is something I grapple with a lot, and I agree that extreme levels of capitalism can be incompatible with a truly cohesive society. It’s hard to find common ground when the playing field is so uneven from the start. Ill write about my views of social capitalism in a future post, so stand by caller!
Lastly, your question about who benefits from a lack of social cohesion is one we should all be asking. It’s easy to get caught up in debates about culture and values while ignoring the larger structural forces at play. In many ways, those in power have a vested interest in keeping us divided—if we’re busy fighting each other, we’re not questioning the systems that keep inequality in place.
Thanks again for sharing such a nuanced perspective. I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on what a balanced and inclusive framework for social cohesion could look like. This is a conversation that I think we’re only just beginning to scratch the surface of.
A good critique Natalia. There is not much social cohesion now, but there is not much violence either, so there goes that theory. I just read a credible article suggesting that our previous Labour govt conspired to sabotage NZ economy when they lost at the last election. It is obvious that all those Woke left-wingers think that anyone that doesnt agree with them are the deplorables, including National, NZ First, and ACT followers. We see that mainstream Media wouldnt allow Family First christians, or NZ Taxpayers org to run ads in their newspaper, cos they are so deplorable that they dont even want their money. When are these Woke idiots going to wake up and realize that most NZers arent interested in their ideology.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Mark. You’ve touched on some key issues that reflect the broader tensions in New Zealand society. I agree that our social cohesion is more fragile than many realize, and the lack of overt violence doesn’t necessarily mean that all is well. Your point about the political divides and how they are portrayed in the media adds another layer to the conversation.
One of the challenges I see is how strongly entrenched our views have become, whether it's within political ideologies or other societal narratives. It’s easy to fall into "us vs. them" thinking, which, as you highlight, can lead to exclusion or dismissiveness on all sides. My research is trying to explore exactly these tensions—how can we create a society where such stark differences don’t push us further apart?
I hope that by questioning our certainties and being more curious about the perspectives of others, even those we disagree with, we can start finding some common ground. Thanks again for engaging with this topic! Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
Yes, at one level our social cohesion can be seen as a bit thin at the moment, and this can be deeply disconcerting. However, if we take a perspective that says ‘we have been here before, on multiple occasions and it worked out in the end’ then maybe it is not so scary. In fact it might be that this is more like business as usual. The 1860s was scary. The waterfront strikes were scary. Vietnam, Manapouri, the Maruia forest, abortion - these were intense in their own ways at the time as well, and seemed to portend a breakdown in civil society. It didn’t break down then and it is unlikely to break down now. I think it is important to have the fights, preferably out in the open. The Overton window shifts and we find ourselves in a new normal. Or more likely, as time passes, we find ourselves with new factions militating for yet different things. I think that the idea of finding a broad consensus where we are as one people is less useful than a conception that supports (sometimes robust) difference, and the provision of guardrails that allow for uncomfortable disagreement between groups. By and large, in NZ, the contenders stay within the guardrails. This is the political system we are fortunate to have. In one sense, this is something that our polity does in fact come together on. (cf. South America for many decades last century - I had a relative who came perilously close to disappearing in Buenos Aires in the 70s - a family contact with a police Colonel saved the day). I think our NZ system is in rude health, functioning as it should.
A spirited and productive conversation on the Platform this morning with the CEO of Ngati Toa: https://youtu.be/DHFFi3ccARw?si=kubQLlkXVg3uM9aY
Ill listen with interest, thanks for sharing and engaging!
Thanks for your thoughtful comment and for bringing in that historical perspective! You’re absolutely right—when we zoom out, we can see that New Zealand has weathered some pretty intense periods of division before, as has the rest of the world for milenia.
I appreciate your framing of “guardrails” that allow for robust, even uncomfortable, disagreement. It’s true that our political system, for all its flaws, does provide those boundaries that keep things from spiraling out of control. That said, I do wonder if the current dynamics—especially with digital media amplifying polarization—are stretching those guardrails more than in the past. But maybe that’s just a sign of the times, and, as you suggest, part of the natural process of evolving toward a “new normal.”
I also agree that striving for a broad consensus might be less realistic than accepting that difference is here to stay—and learning how to navigate it better.
I’d be curious to hear more about your thoughts on how we can better support those guardrails in an increasingly fragmented landscape. How do we ensure that even as new factions emerge, the system remains strong enough to hold it all together?
Thanks again for such a balanced and insightful take—it’s exactly the kind of nuanced conversation I hope Less Certain can foster!