 |
 |
||||
 |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
Chapter 10 | Clarence S. Bayne (continued) Many of the CIRCLE/CCRN paper presentations disregarded differences between mainstream and minority sub-groups. A recent review by the Department of Canadian Heritage of research on social cohesion and cultural practices (Kirpitchenko and de Santis, 1999) point to the general tendency for researchers in this field to overlook ethnic minority cultural activities. This practice often leads to faulty analyses that fail to take into account the contrasting participation rates for the minority and majority groups. This point is made in the findings of research done by Michel Laroche, Chankon Kim and Marc A. Tomiuk (1998). Their work strongly suggests that all ethnic groups exhibit consumer behaviour that are determined by lifestyles and values that are either of the “cultural resistant” category or the “cultural shift or cultural incorporation category.” The research suggests that consumption behaviour should be examined as a function of both the reflective (based on values, beliefs and attitudes) and formative ethnicity indicators. Given the proven importance and explanatory power of these two types of ethnicity indicators, I find this tendency to disregard minorities in the paper presentations strange. Especially since every one talked about “managing diversity,” “living together in a diversified society,” “Canadian multiculturalism and diversity.” On further reflection, I realized that the problem stemmed from the unstated treatment of “social cohesion” as an ideal that CCRN/CIRCLE presenters seemed to unconsciously believe every one would opt for, once it was discovered and accepted as a good thing: a sort of physiocratic view of society. It is at this juncture that I decided that social cohesion would probably be better understood if it were regarded as an “output” of the exchange economy. In this context it would represent the well being of the individual and society as a function of the economic choices made by social and public institutions, and individuals in their private and public “spaces”; as well as the distribution of the private and social benefits of that society among individuals and diverse cultural groups. It is not simply the economic efficiency of the production of socially desirable quantities of goods and services that determines this sense and manifest realizations of social cohesion; but rather it is the degree to which we feel that we have met our functional needs, and some more, while at the same time enjoying the benefits and satisfaction of having created a more humane society and sustainable environment. One could experiment with the development of a social cohesion index by taking measurement on a number of structural, social and economic status and satisfaction indicators. At the upper end of the scale one would experience a state of rest where the system is in equilibrium, and where the society is producing and providing everything that is consistent with the greatest happiness of the largest number of citizens. That is to say a state where everyone, relative to his/her neighbour, is satisfied with his/her perceived and recognized position in society. On the lower end of the scale, the degree of dissatisfaction with social and economic disparities, pollution and environmental decay, cultural assimilation and decline, alienation and inhuman living conditions would be so great that it would cause severe forms of social protests, war, riots, civil disobedience, domestic and public violence. 2. a theoretic framework It seems to me that social cohesion could be discussed within the theoretical framework of a Walrasian general equilibrium analysis (See Note 1). It is understood that when all the assumptions of the classical market model are met there is equilibrium in all markets and sectors of the economy. As long as the opportunity cost of all goods of every type are the same in all markets and are equal to the rate at which each consumer is substituting one good for the other the market equilibria will have met the Pareto optimality condition. The theory tells us that for a given technology and knowledge base there are many different distributions of wealth that will result in Pareto optimality. But the underlying classical general equilibrium market mechanisms do not guarantee an outcome that will necessarily be consistent with society being at the highest point on any social cohesion index. In fact, it cannot guarantee results that will produce any specified desired degree of “social cohesion.” It is precisely dissatisfaction with this weakness that has lead to the search for a civil society theory. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
