Social cohesion vs. Social harmony

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does social cohesion differ from social harmony in your perspectives? To what extent and why? I referred to this topic with my friend yesterday. We basically agreed on the point that social harmony is more difficult to be achieved than social harmony. But, we are still uncertain about whether social harmony necessarily requires social cohesion, or vice versa. This question seems to raise another question: Can anarchism promise people social harmony? I wouldn't dare to acknowledge so, for a society without governance seems to be unimaginably bleak as well as miserable. Tell me what you think upon these questions, and let us prosper our discussions.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,717 • Replies: 2

No top replies

@Mutian,

Hello, well I'll chime-in,

Mutian;101084 wrote:

Does social cohesion differ from social harmony in your perspectives? To what extent and why?

Yes, I'd say it does differ. Cohesion and Harmony, in this context, are two very-different but interrelated concepts. Without referring to my dictionary, I'd say that Social Cohesion describes the extent to which people identify, exhibit loyalty and are bound together whereas Social Harmony is an attribute that is that ability for people to smoothly cooperate, coexist or work together with a minimum or nonexistent friction.

Take a situation where people are either forced to associate or haven't any other option than to be together. In this, there might indeed be cohesion yet there may be little-to-no harmony. On the flip side, people without any identification might work well together, smoothly and harmoniously, yet have no identification or loyalty. I ran into a good many of both situations during my hears in the military. So yes, they most definitely differ.

Mutian;101084 wrote:

...We basically agreed on the point that social harmony is more difficult to be achieved than social harmony.

:perplexed:

.. if you meant to say "... harmony is more difficult to achieve than cohesion" I think I'd agree with you on the surface. Which is easier depends on the setting, people involved and the nature of their association.

Mutian;101084 wrote:

Can anarchism promise people social harmony? I wouldn't dare to acknowledge so, for a society without governance seems to be unimaginably bleak as well as miserable.

I don't think it could promise social harmony - it could well go in the opposite direction. Whether or not any socio-political system achieves either of these qualities depends on thousands of factors. Sure, it could - it just depends on the setting; What do the people want? What do they need? Are they mature enough/responsible enough to self-regulate, etc?

There are too many dependent factors to categorically say any system does or does not, on its own, promote either in a productive sense.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;101435 wrote:

Hello, well I'll chime-in,

Yes, I'd say it does differ. Cohesion and Harmony, in this context, are two very-different but interrelated concepts. Without referring to my dictionary, I'd say that Social Cohesion describes the extent to which people identify, exhibit loyalty and are bound together whereas Social Harmony is an attribute that is that ability for people to smoothly cooperate, coexist or work together with a minimum or nonexistent friction.

Take a situation where people are either forced to associate or haven't any other option than to be together. In this, there might indeed be cohesion yet there may be little-to-no harmony. On the flip side, people without any identification might work well together, smoothly and harmoniously, yet have no identification or loyalty. I ran into a good many of both situations during my hears in the military. So yes, they most definitely differ.

:perplexed:

.. if you meant to say "... harmony is more difficult to achieve than cohesion" I think I'd agree with you on the surface. Which is easier depends on the setting, people involved and the nature of their association.

I don't think it could promise social harmony - it could well go in the opposite direction. Whether or not any socio-political system achieves either of these qualities depends on thousands of factors. Sure, it could - it just depends on the setting; What do the people want? What do they need? Are they mature enough/responsible enough to self-regulate, etc?

There are too many dependent factors to categorically say any system does or does not, on its own, promote either in a productive sense.

Thanks

Well thought!

For me, if understood literarily, social cohesion stands for political conformity only. People conform to laws as they ought to, but may or may not to do so with willingness and joy-which are two essential elements to harmony.

Therefore, social harmony, according to my knowledge, denotes a political as well as social condition in which people comply with laws willingly without being coerced to do so by any external forces. Moreover, social harmony either does not entail or does not need to entail non-friction, for harmony is either an end or an attitude whereby we address a problem-for example, a friction.

Nevertheless, I'd say that both phrases emphasize a sense of "solidarity," but maybe with different approaches to it.

thanks~

0 Replies

Social cohesion vs. Social harmony

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know