Divisive contributions to public discourse about overseas conflicts and immigration can cause our social fabric to fray at the edges.

When we think about the tone of such discourse, it encourages us to consider whether our own contributions will foster social cohesion or promote further conflict.

Social identity, cultural competence, and social cohesion are related concepts that are sometimes poorly understood. This post therefore seeks to explore them with a view to encouraging recommitment to social harmony, chiefly by those of us who work in the ‘caring’ sector.

Comparing Social Identity & Cultural Competence

Social identity theory provides a foundational understanding of how group identities form and influence behavior, which is crucial for developing cultural competence. Cultural competence theories build on this understanding to foster environments where diversity is respected, and intercultural interactions are positive and constructive. Together, these theories offer a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving intergroup relations and promoting social cohesion in multicultural settings.

The chart below offers some further insights into the similarities and distinctions between these concepts.

Alongside these two terms, social cohesion is the other concept in focus in a multicultural society. In his 2003 paper reflecting on what had been learned from Canadian experience, Dick Stanley defined the term as follows:

“The willingness of members of society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper.”

Source: Stanley, Dick. (2003). What Do We Know about Social Cohesion: The Research Perspective of the Federal Government’s Social Cohesion Research Network. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 28. 5-17. 10.2307/3341872.

Towards a meta-theory

Five theoretical perspectives on cultural competence and social identity are highlighted in the ‘mash-up’ chart below. The juxtaposition of these theories may assist us in thinking about the dynamics of their interactions.

Another ‘mash-up’ appears in the next chart, drawing on eight intellectual disciplines to identify various perspectives on the core concepts involved. We understand that a multicultural view must take account of different worldviews, and various paradigms within each of those worldviews. In this instance, each of the eight fields is recognised as a ‘culture’ in its own right, with each comprised of numerous sub-cultures.

Dr. Darla K. Deardorff’s Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (2006, 2009) is one of the more widely quoted models. It helpfully distinguishes between the personal levels of competence focussed on skills, knowledge, and attitudes, and the interpersonal and interactive levels dealing with the internal and external outcomes desired.

A Quartet of Triads

A simplified representation of the related themes of cultural intelligence, cultural humility, cultural coherence, and cultural competence is offered in the chart below, suggesting yet another combination of perspectives on cultural diversity and inclusion.

Accentuating shared values or uniqueness

The ‘narcissism of small differences‘ was a description offered by Freud when commenting on communities and individuals who, despite their overall similarities, focus on minor differences, leading to heightened rivalry and conflict.

In a community moving towards social cohesion, the focus on minor differences can undermine efforts to build unity and understanding. Small cultural, ethnic, or social differences may be magnified, leading to unnecessary and harmful divisions.

Focusing on minor differences can threaten inclusivity by fostering an environment where only certain traits or characteristics are valued. This exclusion can marginalise individuals who do not fit into the narrowly defined group identity. A community that values specific accents, dialects, or customs may alienate members who do not adhere to these expectations and practices, damaging their sense of belonging and participation.

Having worked hard to build bridges and connections between people, we need to ensure that we don’t then chip away at the foundation of those bridges by focussing on minor differences. Micro-aggressions can lead to escalation of conflicts, and so return the parties to alienation and misery.

Diversity in Unity (Human Holarchies)

The paradox of emphasising shared values while celebrating cultural uniqueness is a defining characteristic of multicultural societies. It requires a delicate balance and thoughtful strategies to ensure that unity and diversity are both respected and reinforced. The concepts are sometimes used interchangeably, but there are subtle differences between these two expressions of the central idea, as suggested in the chart below.

By fostering inclusive dialogue, developing flexible frameworks, promoting cultural education, and ensuring diverse representation, we can help our community to navigate this paradox. In that undertaking, our ‘shared purpose’ could be defined as creating a harmonious environment where ‘shared values’ and cultural uniqueness coexist and strengthen each other. (See also the header image above).

The selection of human holarchies illustrated in the following chart highlights some of the diverse ways knowledge domains recognise the nested relationships involved in human societies. Despite their differences, these perspectives are unified by their recognition that cultural variations occur within a single complex system – humanity.

Neutrality & Impartiality

The nonprofit sector tends to be similar to the public sector when it comes to political affiliation. Non-alignment with any political party is the standard. Strict neutrality ensures that, as and when a change of government occurs, our representations will be seen as ‘independent’, and focussed on stakeholder needs rather than a party platform.

Neutrality and impartiality are related concepts. If you are a nonprofit leader, you may find it helpful to reflect on the ways these concepts are expressed in your governance and advocacy endeavours.

The directors’ obligations to avoid conflict of interest is perhaps the most obvious link with governance, while the manager’s ability to bring balanced and impartial (evidence-based) advice to the board, and for the board to objectively weigh the pros and cons, might be the most obvious expressions of the ‘impartiality principle’.

In the context of our reflections on social cohesion, neutrality is also likely to mean avoidance of any action that might be seen as divisive, or biased against one part of our multicultural community.

Promoting social cohesion

Most nonprofits identify with values such as respect, fairness, equity, and beneficence (including ‘first, do no harm’). These values are foundational to social cohesion, which in turn is foundational to progress for our entire community. Nonprofit leaders can help to promote that cohesion and its wider benefits by the action they take within their own organisation, and within the wider community they serve.

See also:
Creating Value using an integrated (multi-capital) approach
Measuring your social value (impact)
The science of ‘worth’ – your Theory of Value
Masks, blindfolds, hats, and armour
With ‘respect’ …
Ways of knowing and being in organisational culture
Combating Conflict: Negotiating Interests