As we reflect on the events of the summer of 2024, it is clear that fostering social cohesion requires a bold, inclusive, and collaborative approach. Community media holds untapped potential to bridge divides, amplify unheard voices, and build trust within our communities. Policymakers, civic society organisations, and local authorities must seize this moment to integrate community media into their strategies, ensuring that no voice is left behind in shaping a more cohesive and resilient society.
Social Cohesion Strategy Event
I attended a forum event organised by Belong, British Future, and Together, which took place on the 20th of November at the Friends Meeting House on Euston Road in London. This event brought together participants from various public service, civic society, and community organisations. The primary purpose was to deliberate on the policy priorities for the social cohesion strategy that the UK government may develop in response to the civil disturbances in England during the summer of 2024.
The discussions were centred around the principles set out in the joint report from Belong, British Future, and Together, titled ‘Building Foundations for Social Cohesion’. It was an opportunity to engage with diverse perspectives and collaborate on shaping a cohesive strategy to address the critical issues affecting community integration and resilience in the UK.
There was a positive reception from attendees, focusing on various aspects of community building and resilience, which included:
- Engagement and Networking: The event brought members of the different networks together from different sectors like local government, civil society, and business, all united by the goal of promoting social cohesion. The event provided opportunities for networking and thought leadership.
- Content and Discussion: Sessions at the event tackled important themes like the future challenges to social cohesion due to digital technologies, the power of community volunteering in fostering connection, and the role of local government in enhancing community resilience. Discussions also highlighted the lack of a national measurement framework for assessing local social cohesion, which is crucial for evidence-based policymaking.
- Public Sentiment: As reported on social media, there was an appreciation for the event’s focus on leveraging people’s curiosity to foster understanding and connection, suggesting that the event resonated well with attendees in terms of educational value and practical application.
Overall, the event was a useful platform for discussing established approaches to community integration and resilience, with a strong emphasis on practical insights and future-oriented community strategies.
There was a strong focus on faith-based identities during the discussions, as well as a conceptualisation that many of the antagonists of the riots had a ‘right-wing’ agenda. These may be valid first-round assumptions, but we will need a more sociologically grounded enquiry to ensure that these assumptions can be verified. Caution should be exercised when labelling civil conflict as a battle between religion and nationalistic extremism, to avoid oversimplifying the complex dynamics underlying these disturbances.
UK Government Social Cohesion Framework
The social cohesion strategy implemented by the previous Conservative Government identified a range of intersecting problems. In general, reviews of social cohesion policy in the UK tend to cover the following main issues:
- Integration and Segregation: Addressing the separation of communities along ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic lines, and promoting better integration.
- Language Barriers: Tackling the challenges posed by limited English language proficiency among certain immigrant communities, which can hinder access to services and social participation.
- Economic Inequality: Examining disparities in income, employment opportunities, and social mobility that affect community cohesion.
- Education Disparities: Highlighting differences in educational attainment and addressing segregation within schools.
- Housing Policies: Looking at how housing allocation can lead to concentrated areas of deprivation and affect community relations.
- Discrimination and Racism: Confronting issues of prejudice, hate crimes, and systemic discrimination that undermine social harmony.
- Community Engagement: Encouraging active participation in civic life and decision-making processes to strengthen community bonds.
- Extremism and Radicalisation: Identifying and mitigating the factors that contribute to extremist ideologies and promoting shared values.
- Youth Inclusion: Focusing on the younger generation to prevent disenfranchisement and social exclusion.
- Policy Implementation: Evaluating the effectiveness of existing government initiatives aimed at enhancing social cohesion and recommending improvements.
After the Riots
The “After the Riots” statement represents a significant attempt to move the discussion of social cohesion forward. By addressing the multifaceted challenges that communities face, it aims to foster a more inclusive and harmonious society. The “After the Riots” report, published in September 2024 by British Future, Belong, and the Together Coalition, presents a comprehensive twelve-point policy agenda aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the summer riots and strengthening social cohesion in the UK. The key recommendations are as follows:
- National Social Cohesion Strategy: The government should develop a long-term, cross-departmental strategy to promote social cohesion, ensuring coordinated efforts across various sectors.
- Local Cohesion Strategies: Councils and combined authorities should be tasked with creating and implementing local cohesion plans, supported by appropriate resources and guidance.
- Regulation of Social Media: Social media companies must be held accountable for controlling the spread of misinformation and hate speech, with stricter regulations and enforcement measures.
- Asylum Accommodation Management: Immediate actions are necessary to prevent asylum and refugee housing from becoming focal points for community grievances and extremist activities.
- Restorative Justice Initiatives: The Ministry of Justice should pilot programmes that bring together individuals convicted of offences related to the riots with affected communities, such as mosques and refugee organisations, to foster understanding and reconciliation.
- Educational Engagement: Schools and colleges should play a pivotal role in enhancing young people’s resilience to online misinformation and extremist narratives, while also providing opportunities for interaction among students from diverse backgrounds.
- Promotion of Social Connections: Support should be increased for programmes that encourage social interactions across different community groups, leveraging sports, arts, and cultural activities to build shared identities.
- Addressing Prejudice and Hate Crime: A clear working definition of anti-Muslim prejudice should be established, alongside comprehensive strategies to tackle various forms of hate crime.
- Rebuilding Trust in Institutions: Efforts are needed to restore public trust in institutions and enhance democratic resilience, potentially through initiatives like a Speakers’ Commission to facilitate national dialogue.
- Community Engagement in Policy Development: Local communities should be actively involved in the development and implementation of policies affecting them, ensuring that their voices are heard and considered.
- Monitoring and Evaluation: Regular assessments of social cohesion initiatives should be conducted to evaluate their effectiveness and inform future policy decisions.
- Resource Allocation: Adequate funding and resources must be allocated to support the implementation of these recommendations, recognising the importance of investing in social cohesion for long-term societal stability.
These recommendations aim to address the root causes of the disturbances and build a more cohesive and resilient society.
Inclusion of Community Media in Social Cohesion Strategies
The absence of a specific media component in the ‘After the Riots’ report, apart from the regulation of social media, represents a significant gap that needs to be addressed. Incorporating a media component would greatly benefit the advocated model by prompting policymakers, civic society organisations, public sector organisations, and community groups to consider how they can promote a form of media grounded in public service and civic engagement. This media should be defined by and responsive to the public purposes as determined by the communities it serves.
Community media plays a crucial role in enhancing social cohesion, yet it is often overlooked in efforts to bring people together. It provides a platform for marginalized voices, facilitates dialogue between diverse groups, and promotes local identity—all of which are essential for fostering social cohesion. Despite its importance, community media is seldom included at the policy development and planning stages of social cohesion and public service provision strategies.
By addressing this gap, we can ensure a more holistic approach to building a cohesive and resilient society, where the media serves as a bridge to connect and empower communities.
Community media can play a pivotal role in the development and implementation of social cohesion policy by fostering communication, understanding, and engagement within and between diverse communities. Below are the key roles that community media can play in this context:
Amplifying Marginalised Voices: Community media provides a platform for underrepresented groups to share their stories, perspectives, and experiences, ensuring that their voices are included in policy discussions. By showcasing diverse narratives, community media counters dominant stereotypes and promotes inclusivity.
Facilitating Dialogue: It acts as a space for open dialogue between different communities, helping to bridge cultural, ethnic, and social divides. Programmes focused on shared concerns—such as local development, education, or health—can bring together individuals with differing views to collaborate and find common ground.
Promoting Local Identity: By highlighting local stories, traditions, and achievements, community media fosters a sense of belonging and pride, which are essential for social cohesion. Celebrating local culture helps communities to see the value in their diversity while reinforcing their shared identity.
Building Trust in Institutions: Community media can serve as an intermediary between public institutions and local residents, improving transparency and trust. By disseminating information about social cohesion policies and initiatives, it helps build awareness and encourages participation in democratic processes.
Combating Misinformation: Through accurate reporting and community-focused journalism, community media addresses the spread of disinformation and extremist narratives that can threaten social cohesion. It helps to educate audiences about the risks of misinformation and equips them to critically evaluate sources of information.
Encouraging Civic Engagement: Community media motivates residents to participate in civic life, from volunteering to voting, thereby strengthening democratic resilience. It can facilitate campaigns and events that engage individuals in meaningful discussions about community challenges and solutions.
Promoting Cross-Cultural Understanding: Through programming that explores different cultural practices, faiths, and traditions, community media fosters empathy and mutual respect. Initiatives such as community storytelling projects or cultural exchange programmes enhance understanding and reduce prejudice.
Supporting Crisis Management: In times of social tension or unrest, community media can play a stabilising role by providing accurate information, dispelling rumours, and offering a platform for dialogue and reconciliation. It can mobilise communities to support one another during crises, strengthening local resilience.
Policy Advocacy and Feedback: Community media serves as a channel for bottom-up feedback, allowing policymakers to better understand the needs and concerns of local communities. It can advocate for policies that reflect the lived experiences of diverse groups, ensuring social cohesion initiatives are grounded in real-world contexts.
Education and Capacity Building: Community media provides educational content that promotes skills such as critical thinking, media literacy, and intercultural communication. It empowers individuals to take an active role in shaping their communities and contributing to cohesion-building efforts.
Integration into Policy Frameworks: To maximise its potential, community media should be explicitly included in social cohesion strategies and supported through funding, training, and infrastructure development. Policymakers can leverage its grassroots reach to design more inclusive and effective policies, ensuring that all segments of society have a stake in promoting cohesion.
By acting as a conduit for communication, understanding, and collaboration, community media could be an indispensable tool in creating and sustaining cohesive, resilient communities.
Shared Rules or Shared Goals
It is worth considering the philosophical and conceptual differences that a social cohesion strategy might undertake. The ideas of Michael Oakeshott, who extensively explored the manner in which civic purpose and social solidarity are achieved, provide valuable insights. Oakeshott’s distinction between a ‘civitas’ and a ‘communitas’ highlights two different conceptions of human association, especially in the context of political life.
A ‘civitas’ is characterised as an association of individuals bound by rules and laws, rather than shared goals or purposes. This framework prioritises procedural order over substantive outcomes, allowing autonomous individuals to coexist within a legal structure that facilitates the pursuit of individual goals. Conversely, a ‘communitas’ embodies an association based on shared values, goals, and purposes, fostering a sense of collective identity and mutual obligation among its members.
By digging deeper into Oakeshott’s insights, policymakers can better understand how the goals and objectives of social cohesion might be achieved in different ways. Integrating these philosophical considerations into policy frameworks can ensure that strategies for promoting social cohesion are both inclusive and effective, accommodating the diverse needs and aspirations of all community members.
The distinction between civitas and communitas in Michael Oakeshott’s political philosophy reflects two different conceptions of human association, especially in the context of political life. These terms are often used to discuss the contrast between individualist and collectivist approaches to political organisation and community. Below is an exploration of how Oakeshott frames these concepts:
Civitas: The Association of Rules
- Nature of Association: A civitas is an association of individuals bound together by rules and laws, rather than by shared goals or purposes. It emphasises procedural order over substantive outcomes.
- Key Features: Members of a civitas are autonomous individuals who come together to create and abide by a legal framework that allows for coexistence. The association does not impose shared values or objectives; instead, it facilitates the pursuit of individual goals within a structure of agreed-upon rules. It aligns with Oakeshott’s concept of the “civil association,” where the state’s role is to provide a legal framework and adjudicate disputes, not to define or enforce collective goals.
- Philosophical Foundations: Rooted in liberal, pluralistic traditions that respect individual liberty. Avoids prescribing a single “good life” for all members.
Communitas: The Community of Purpose
- Nature of Association: A communitas is characterised by a shared purpose or common goal, often involving collective action and shared values. It represents an association united by mutual commitment to a substantive idea or objective.
- Key Features: Members of a communitas see themselves as part of a larger whole with shared aims, such as building a religious community, pursuing a political ideology, or achieving social cohesion. The association involves a sense of solidarity and collective identity, often requiring the subordination of individual interests to the collective good. It reflects the idea of a “corporate” or “enterprise association” in Oakeshott’s terminology, where the association’s value lies in its ability to achieve a specific goal.
- Philosophical Foundations: More aligned with communitarian or collectivist traditions. It can sometimes lead to tension with individual freedoms when collective goals take precedence.
Comparison and Implications
- Individual Freedom: Civitas prioritises individual freedom and the rule of law, while communitas often requires individuals to conform to collective aims.
- Role of the State: In a civitas, the state acts as a neutral arbiter, facilitating coexistence without imposing substantive goals. In a communitas, the state may play a directive role in pursuing shared purposes.
- Social Cohesion: Communitas may foster a stronger sense of belonging and unity due to its shared goals, whereas civitas supports social diversity and pluralism through procedural order.
Relevance in Oakeshott’s Philosophy
Oakeshott generally favours the civitas model, as it aligns with his scepticism towards overarching collective ideologies and his preference for a pluralistic society governed by the rule of law. He warns against the risks of communitas degenerating into authoritarianism or dogmatism when collective goals are enforced at the expense of individual liberty. The distinction lies in whether an association is bound by shared rules (civitas) or shared goals (communitas). Oakeshott’s nuanced perspective highlights the balance needed between enabling individual freedom and fostering social unity.
Community Media in a Civitas Framework
The distinction between civitas and communitas in Michael Oakeshott’s framework has significant implications when considering the inclusion of community media in a social cohesion policy strategy. The relevance lies in how policymakers conceptualise the role of community media in fostering cohesion: whether it should operate within a framework of procedural rules (civitas) or serve as an instrument to achieve shared societal goals (communitas).
Focus on Rules and Pluralism
In a civitas-oriented strategy, community media would act as a neutral platform that facilitates dialogue, expression, and coexistence among diverse groups. Its role would not be to promote a singular vision of social cohesion but to enable individuals and communities to engage freely within a shared framework of laws and principles.
- Diversity of Voices: Community media would ensure that all groups, including marginalised ones, have access to public discourse without privileging any single narrative.
- Procedural Fairness: It would operate under clear rules that protect freedom of expression and equal access while avoiding the imposition of ideological or moral imperatives.
- Democratic Engagement: Community media would encourage participation in civic life by providing information and fostering debate on local issues, enhancing the procedural aspects of democracy.
- Challenges: Risk of fragmentation if no shared sense of purpose is fostered. Difficulty in addressing deep-seated inequalities or divisions that require collective effort.
Community Media in a Communitas Framework
In a communitas-oriented strategy, community media would take on an instrumental role, actively promoting shared values, common goals, and a collective identity to strengthen social cohesion.
- Building Solidarity: Community media could focus on fostering narratives that emphasise commonalities and shared aspirations, helping to create a sense of belonging.
- Promoting Shared Values: It could actively counteract disinformation and extremist narratives by reinforcing messages aligned with the societal goals of cohesion and inclusion.
- Catalysing Collective Action: Community media could be used to mobilise communities around shared projects or campaigns aimed at improving local social and economic conditions.
- Challenges: Risk of suppressing dissenting or minority views if the collective vision dominates too strongly. Potential erosion of trust if community media is perceived as a tool for top-down agenda-setting rather than grassroots empowerment.
Balancing Civitas and Communitas in Social Cohesion Policy
Given the dual demands of social cohesion policy—to respect individual freedoms while fostering unity—community media could potentially serve as a bridge between the civitas and communitas approaches:
Procedural Fairness with Shared Goals
Community media could operate within the procedural fairness of a civitas, ensuring equitable access and pluralism, while also supporting shared goals that align with the broader societal good, such as combating hate speech or promoting mutual understanding.
Grassroots Engagement and Co-Creation
A hybrid approach could empower communities to define their own cohesion strategies through community media. This would combine the bottom-up diversity of civitas with the sense of purpose characteristic of communitas.
Flexibility Across Contexts
In highly diverse contexts, a civitas approach might be more appropriate to safeguard pluralism. In contexts with shared challenges (e.g., post-conflict areas or areas of economic deprivation), a communitas approach could foster the collective action needed to rebuild trust and unity.
Practical Implications for Policy Strategy
Funding and Independence: Policymakers should ensure that community media is supported financially without compromising its independence, allowing it to function as both a neutral forum and a community-builder.
- Content Guidelines: Frameworks should encourage content that promotes dialogue and understanding (civitas), while also addressing disinformation and fostering shared goals (communitas).
- Role in Crisis Management: Community media can act as a communitas in moments of crisis by uniting communities around shared responses, while transitioning back to a civitas role in periods of stability.
By incorporating both civitas and communitas principles, community media can serve as a dynamic and adaptive tool, contributing to a nuanced and effective social cohesion policy. Building a cohesive society is not just a policy challenge; it is a shared responsibility that calls for collective action. Community media can play a transformative role in connecting diverse communities, promoting understanding, and empowering marginalised voices. We urge policymakers, practitioners, and community leaders to prioritise the inclusion of community media in their social cohesion strategies. By doing so, we can ensure that our efforts to foster resilience and unity are rooted in the lived experiences and aspirations of all our communities.