Social Cohesion: A Conceptual Framework

Öz

In the most general sense, social cohesion is evaluated through how people feel about the communities they live together, whether they respect each other, and how much they feel that they live in a safe and friendly environment. However, it is understood that the concept of social cohesion is used mostly with functional goals and incorrectly, is rarely defined, and the concept remains far from clarity. In this study, it is aimed to deal with the concept of social cohesion and to create a conceptual framework for readers, researchers, and field workers. In conclusion, the concept of social cohesion was evaluated in two dimensions: (1) combating the threats arising from social segregations and (2) strengthening social relations and social capital. The first dimension is embodied in (i) stance against xenophobia, (ii) prevention of discrimination and (iii) social exclusion; while the second is embodied in (iv) increasing social contact, (v) reducing social exclusion and (vi) strengthening social capital. These six phenomena were also evaluated as the main indicators of social cohesion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Discrimination
• Social exclusion
• Social distance
• Social capital
• Social contact

Sosyal Uyum: Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve

Öz

Sosyal uyum en genel anlamıyla insanların birlikte yaşadıkları topluluklar için nasıl hissettikleri, birbirlerine saygı gösterip göstermedikleri, güvenli ve içten bir çevrede yaşadıklarını ne düzeyde hissettikleri üzerinden değerlendirilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, sosyal uyumun literatürde daha çok işlevsel hedeflerle ve hatalı olarak kullanıldığı, nadiren tanımlandığı, kavramın açıklıktan ve netlikten uzak kaldığı anlaşılmaktadır. Bu noktadan hareketle bu çalışmada sosyal uyum kavramını ele almak okuyucular, araştırmacılar ve saha çalışanları için kavramsal bir çerçeve oluşturmak amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda sosyal uyum kavramı (1) ayrışmalardan doğan tehditlerle mücadele ve (2) sosyal ilişkilerin ve sosyal sermayenin güçlendirilmesi biçiminde iki boyutta ele alınmıştır. Birincisi (i) zenofobiaya karşı duruş, (ii) ayrımcılığın ve (iii) sosyal dışlanmanın önlenmesi; ikincisi ise (iv) sosyal temasın arttırılması, (v) sosyal mesafenin azaltılması ve (vi) sosyal sermayenin güçlendirilmesi üzerinden somutlaştırılmıştır. Bu altı olgu aynı zamanda sosyal uyumun temel göstergeleri olarak değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ayrımcılık
• Sosyal dışlanma
• Sosyal mesafe
• Sosyal sermaye
• Sosyal temas

Kaynakça

1. Adaman, F., Keyder, Ç., Müderrisoğlu, S., Yılmaz, B. ve Yükseker, D. (2006). Türkiye'de büyük kentlerin gecekondu ve çöküntü mahallelerinde yaşanan yoksulluk ve sosyal dışlanma. European Comission, Türkiye Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı.
2. Akkan, B. E., Deniz, M. B. ve Ertan, M. (2011). Sosyal dışlanmanın Roman halleri. İstanbul: Sosyal Politika Forumu.
3. Alanya, A., Swyngedouw, M., Vandezande, V. ve Phalet, K. (2015). Close encounters: Minority and majority perceptions of discrimination and intergroup relations in Antwerp, Belgium. International Migration Review, 51(1), 191-217.
4. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge/Reading: Addison-Wesley.
5. Aygüler, E., Ayalp, M.Ç., Yetkin Aker, D. ve Buz S. (2021). Türkiye’deki Sığınmacı İstihdamının Beşerî Sermaye Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Sosyoekonomi, 29(47), 159-180.
6. Bhalla, A. ve Lapeyre, F. (1997). Social exclusion: Towards an analytical and operational framework. Development and Change, 28, 413-433.
7. Bichi, R. (2008). Mixed approach to measuring social distance. Cognition, Brain, Behaviour. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 487-508.
8. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A. ve Otten, S. (1995). Perceptions of relative group size and group status: Effects on intergroup discrimination in negative evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 231-247.

9. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308.
10. Bogart, L. M., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, D. E., Klein, D. J., Davies, S. L., Cuccaro, P. M., ve diğ. (2013). Association between perceived discrimination and racial/ethnic disparities in problem behaviors among preadolescent youths. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1074-1081.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. İçinde: J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory adn research for the sociology of education (s. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
12. Brown, C. S. (2017). Perceptions of intergroup discrimination The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents (s. 269-291).
13. Buchan, N. R., Johnson, E. J. ve Croson, R. T. A. (2006). Let's get personal: An international examination of influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 373-398.
14. Buck, N. (2001). Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2251-2275.
15. Büyükilikmen, A. Y. (2015). Sosyal sermaye ve ölçülmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Teknik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10, 45-52.
16. Cappelletti, D., Mittone, L. ve Ploner, M. (2015). Language and intergroup discrimination. Evidence from an experiment CEEL Working Paper 4-15. Trento, Italy: Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economy, University of Trento.
17. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
18. Collins, H. (2003). Discrimination, equality and social inclusion. The Modern Law Review, 66, 16-43.
19. Çuhadar Gürkaynak, E. (2012). Toplumsal temas: Önyargı ve ayrımcılığı önlemek için bir sosyal değişim aracı olarak kullanılabilir mi? Ayrımcılık: Çok Boyutlu Yaklaşımlar, 255-267.
20. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. ve Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5-21.
21. Erdoğan, M. M., Şener, B., Sipahioğlu, E., Kavukçuer, Y. ve Yılmaz Başçeri, E. (2017). Kopuş'tan uyum'a kent mültecileri: Suriyeli mülteciler ve belediyelerin süreç yönetimi: İstanbul örneği: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür Yayınları.
22. European Commission. (2005). Study on immigration, integration and social cohesion: Final report. İçinde: European Commission Employment and Social Affairs DG (Ed.): Focus Consultancy Ltd., Erasmus University Rotterdam Faculty of Social Sciences.
23. Evergeti, V. ve Zontini, E. (2006). Introduction: Some critical reflections on social capital, migration and transnational families. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(6), 1025-1039.
24. Fernandez, M. ve Nichols, L. (2002). Bridging and bonding capital: Pluralist ethnic relations in Silicon Valley. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(9-10), 104-122.
25. Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A. ve Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 679-695.
26. Flores-Yeffal, N. (2015). Migration and social capital. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 15, 411-415.
27. Fossett, M. (2006). Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation: Theoretical explorations using simulation analysis. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 30(3-4), 185-273.
28. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-425.
29. Galabuzi, G.-E. ve Teelucksingh, C. (2010). Social cohesion, social exclusion, social capital: Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
30. Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strenght of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 201-233.
31. Grieve, P. G. ve Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group sitiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 926-940.
32. Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 199-228.
33. Hewstone, M. ve Swart, H. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374-386.
34. Hughes, J. (2007). Mediating and moderating effects of inter-group contact: Case studies from bilingual/bi-national schools in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33(3), 419-437.
35. IOM. (2017). Integration and social cohesion: Key elements for reaping the benefits of migration Global Compact Thematic Paper: International Organization for Migration.
36. Khalaf, S. ve Ilgar, R. (2017). Suriyeli mülteciler ve Türkiye'de mülteci sorunu. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 40-52.
37. Leaper, C. ve Brown, C. S. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls. Child Development, 79(3), 685-703.
38. Lenoir, R. (1974). Les exclus: Un Francais sur dix. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
39. Loizos, P. (2000). Are refugees social capitalists? İçinde: S. Baron, J. Field ve T. Schuller (Ed.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (s. 124-141): Oxford University Press.
40. Magee, J. C. ve Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158-186.
41. Nannestad, P., Svendsen, G. L. H. ve Svendsen, G. T. (2008). Bridge over troubled water? Migration and social capital. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 607-631.
42. Narayan, D. ve Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A dimentional approach to measuring social capital: Development and validation of social capital inventory. Current Sociology, 9(2), 59-102.
43. Oxman‐Martinez, J., Rummens, A. J., Moreau, J., Choi, Y. R., Beiser, M., Ogilvie, L., ve diğ. (2012). Perceived ethnic discrimination and social exclusion: Newcomer immigrant children in Canada. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(3), 376-388.
44. Parrillo, V. N. ve Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. Social Science Journal, 42, 257-271.
45. Pechar, E. ve Kranton, R. (2017). Moderators of intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: A meta-analysis: Duke University.
46. Pettigrew, T. F. ve Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
47. PRI. (2005). Social capital as a public policy tool project report: Policy Research Initiative.
48. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35-42.
49. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664-683.
50. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital Culture and Politics (s. 223-234). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
51. Rink, N., Phalet, K. ve Swyngedouw, M. (2008). The effects of immigrant population size, unemployment, and individual characteristics on voting for the Vlaams Blok in Flanders 1991-1999. European Sociological Review, 25(4), 411-424.
52. Roesch, C. (2015). The social distance scale, Emory S. Bogardus and Californian interwar migration research offside The Chicago School. Journal of Migration History, 1, 200-214.
53. Rudiger, A. ve Spencer, S. (2003). Social integration of migrants and ethnic minorities: Policies to combat discrimination. Conference on the Economic and Social Aspects of Immigration Organized by the European Commission and OECD.
54. Saggar, S., Somerville, W., Ford, R. ve Sobolewska, M. (2012). The impacts of migration on social cohesion and integration: Final report: Migration Advisory Committee.
55. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B. ve Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92-115.
56. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A. ve Wagner, U. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 28-51.
57. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M. ve Tausch, N. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 443-462.
58. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T. ve Garcia, A. (2014). The Consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well‐being: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 921-948.
59. Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M. ve Jackson, J. S. (2008). The prevalence of perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean black youth. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1288-1297.
60. Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application, and scrutiny. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank Office of Environment and Social Development
61. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. İçinde: W. G. Austin ve S. Worchel (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (s. 33-47). Monterey, CA.
62. Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V. ve Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Perspective taking combats the denialof intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 738-745.
63. Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.
64. Verkuyten, M. ve Kinket, B. (2000). Social distance in a multi ethnic society: The ethnic hierarchy among Dutch preadolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 75-85.
65. Voci, A. ve Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup relations, 6(1), 37-54.
66. Weaver, C. N. (2008). Distance as a measure of prejudice among ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 779-795.
67. Woolcock, M. ve Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249.