Social disruption

Last updated February 22, 2024

Social disruption is a term used in sociology to describe the alteration, dysfunction or breakdown of social life, often in a community setting. Social disruption implies a radical transformation, in which the old certainties of modern society are falling away and something quite new is emerging.^[1] Social disruption might be caused through natural disasters, massive human displacements, rapid economic, technological and demographic change but also due to controversial policy-making.

Social disruptions are for example rising sea levels that are creating new landscapes, drawing new world maps whose key lines are not traditional boundaries between nation-states but elevations above sea level. On the local level, an example would be the closing of a community grocery store, which might cause social disruption in a community by removing a "meeting ground" for community members to develop interpersonal relationships and community solidarity.

Results of social disruption

"We are wandering aimlessly and dispassionately, arguing for and against, but the one statement on which we are, beyond all differences and over many continents, to be able to agree on, is: "I can no longer understand the world".^[1]

Social disruptions often lead to five social symptoms: frustration, democratic disconnection, fragmentation, polarization and escalation. Studies from the last decade show, that our societies have become more fragmented and less coherent (e.g. Bishop 2008), neighbourhoods turning into little states, organizing themselves to defend the local politics and culture against outsiders (Walzer 1983; Bauman 2017) and increasingly identifying through ways of voting, lifestyle or wellbeing (e.g. Schäfer 2015). Especially people on the more right and left political spectrum are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views and have similar interests (Pew 2014). Hence, citizens become alienated from democratic consensus (Foa and Munk 2016; Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018) and tend to assume that their opponents believe more extreme things than they really do (Iyengar et al. 2012). Moreover, fear of being identified as unqualified, denied value and dignity and for that reason marginalized, excluded or outcast, is giving rise to a widespread disenchantment with the idea that the future will improve the human condition and a mistrust in the ability of nation-states to make this happen (Pew 2015; Bauman 2017). At the same time, accelerations in liberal progression, globalization and migration flows have led to increasing polarized contestations about national identities - a volatile and critical social state, prone to conflict escalation (e.g. hate crimes after Brexit vote, incident at far-right rally in Charlottesville, USA).

Policy making

"It is unclear how to achieve policy changes of any kind in a polarized society that has few shared facts and whose civic muscles are atrophying."^[2]

International but also local challenges force our societies to find solutions and make decisions on controversial issues in an accelerated manner. The complexity of such decisions is not only mirrored in the aim to tackle a multi-causality of root causes, it also faces a high degree of uncertainty as regard to its impact. Hence, due to the growing separation between the world of public opinion on the one hand, and the world of problem solving on the other (Mair 2009), it is very likely that political decisions further polarize our societies. The explanation is that citizens evaluate disruptive developments and related policy changes on a two-way level, on the personal interests and comfort, as well on its perceived impact on their social identity and community (Ryan and Deci 2000; Haidt 2012). If a policy change reflects the substantive representation of the median voter, is something that just does not matter to citizens in regard to their acceptance of decisions (Esaiasson et al. 2017). This can produce multi facet conflicts over interests, facts and norms between supporters and opponents (Itten 2017). Simultaneously, the capacity of political parties and actors of civil society, to bridge that divide, is declining (Mair 2009). In such a situations, social psychology tells us that citizens who feel uncomfortable will hold tighter to the assumptions that make them feel secure (Podziba 2014). Especially in public policy disputes, parties are hardly giving up their assumptions voluntarily, and citizens begin to masquerade their true individual conflict of interest (e.g. devaluation of property; insecurity) with more normative conflict of interest (e.g. protection of nature; protection of culture). Such distorted behaviour remarkably increases at times citizens or communities feel that a policy change is threatening their way of living.

Bridging social capital

In the light of the increasing social divisions and democratic disconnection, Putnam and Feldstein (2004) foresaw the importance of creating "bridging social capital", e.g. ties that link groups across a greater social distance. As the authors elaborate, the creation of robust social capital takes time and effort. It develops largely through extensive and time-consuming face-to-face conversation between two individuals or small groups of people. Only then there is the chance to build the trust and mutual understanding that characterizes the foundation of social capital. In no way, Putnam and Feldstein write, it is possible to create social capital instantaneous, anonymous or en masse. Furthermore, building social capital among people who already share a reservoir of similar cultural referents, ethnicity, personal experience or moral identity etc. is qualitatively different. Homogeneity makes connective strategies easier, however, a society with only homogeneous social capital risks looking like Bosnia or Belfast. Hence, bridging social capital is especially important for reconciling democracy and diversity. Yet, bridging social capital among diverse social group is intrinsically less likely to develop automatically.

Related Research Articles

Democracy is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state. A minimalist definition of democracy is that rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.

In the United States, politics functions within a framework of a constitutional federal republic and presidential system, with three distinct branches that share powers: the U.S. Congress which forms the legislative branch, a bicameral legislative body comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch, which is headed by the president of the United States, who serves as the country's head of state and government; and the judicial branch, composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and which exercises judicial power.

Social capital is "the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively". It involves the effective functioning of social groups through interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity. Social capital is a measure of the value of resources, both tangible and intangible, and the impact that ideal creators have on the resources involved in each relationship, and on larger groups. Some have described it as a form of capital that produces public goods for a common purpose, although this does not align with how it has been measured.

An electoral college is a set of electors who are selected to elect a candidate to particular offices. Often these represent different organizations, political parties or entities, with each organization, political party or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. The United States has been the only democracy in the 21st century that still uses an electoral college to select its executive president. The other democracies that used an electoral college for these elections switched to direct elections in the 19th or 20th century.^:215

Civil society can be understood as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business, and including the family and the private sphere. By other authors, civil society is used in the sense of 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that advance the interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes.

Robert David Putnam is an American political scientist specializing in comparative politics. He is the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. Putnam developed the influential two-level game theory that assumes international agreements will only be successfully brokered if they also result in domestic benefits. His most famous work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences. In March 2015, he published a book called Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis that looked at issues of inequality of opportunity in the United States. According to the Open Syllabus Project, Putnam is the fourth most frequently cited author on college syllabi for political science courses.

<i>Bowling Alone</i> 2000 nonfiction book by Robert Putnam

Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam. It was developed from his 1995 essay entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital". Putnam surveys the decline of social capital in the United States since 1950. He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He argues that this undermines the active civic engagement which a strong democracy requires from its citizens.

Civic engagement or civic participation is any individual or group activity addressing issues of public concern. Civic engagement includes communities working together or individuals working alone in both political and non-political actions to protect public values or make a change in a community. The goal of civic engagement is to address public concerns and promote the quality of the community.

Civic journalism is the idea of integrating journalism into the democratic process. The media not only informs the public, but it also works towards engaging citizens and creating public debate. The civic journalism movement is an attempt to abandon the notion that journalists and their audiences are spectators in political and social processes. In its place, the civic journalism movement seeks to treat readers and community members as participants.

The Goldsmith Book Prize is a literary award for books published in the United States.

Social polarization is the segregation within a society that emerges when factors such as income inequality, real-estate fluctuations and economic displacement result in the differentiation of social groups from high-income to low-income. It is a state and/or a tendency denoting the growth of groups at the extremities of the social hierarchy and the parallel shrinking of groups around its middle.

Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. His main areas of study are the psychology of morality and moral emotions.

The medium of television has had many influences on society since its inception. The belief that this impact has been dramatic has been largely unchallenged in media theory since its inception. However, there is much dispute as to what those effects are, how serious the ramifications are and if these effects are more or less evolutionary with human communication.

Political ethics is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. It covers two areas: the ethics of process, which deals with public officials and their methods, and the ethics of policy, which concerns judgments surrounding policies and laws.

Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. More recently, Mohammad Atari, Jesse Graham, and Jonathan Haidt have revised some aspects of the theory and developed new measurement tools. The theory has been developed by a diverse group of collaborators and popularized in Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. The theory proposes that morality is "more than one thing", first arguing for five foundations, and later expanding for six foundations :

Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.

<i>How Democracies Die</i> 2018 book on democracy

How Democracies Die is a 2018 comparative politics book by Harvard University political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt about democratic backsliding and how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power. The book also offers stark warnings about the impact of the Republican Party and Donald Trump's presidency on U.S. democracy.

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

Democratic backsliding in the United States has been identified as a trend at the state and national levels in various indices and analyses. Democratic backsliding is "a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection".

References

1 2 Beck, Ulrich (2016-04-18). The metamorphosis of the world. Cambridge. ISBN 9780745690216. OCLC 921994898.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
↑ Sitaraman, Ganesh (2018-03-17). "The three crises of liberal democracy | Ganesh Sitaraman". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-04-23.

Bauman, Z. (2017). Symptoms in search for an object and a name, in Geiselberger, H. (Ed.) (2017). The Great Regression. Cambridge: Polity Press, 13-26.
Beck, Ulrich (2017). The Metamorphosis of the World. Polity Press.
Bishop, B. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., and Persson, M. (2017): Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens? Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 739-765.
Foa, R. S. and Mounk, Y. (2016). The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3): 5-17.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.
Itten, A. (2017). Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 33(3): 185-211.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., and Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology. A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public opinion quarterly, 76(3): 405-431.
Krannich, Richard S, and Thomas Greider. 1984. "Personal Well-Being in Rapid Growth and Stable Communities: Multiple Indicators and Contrasting Results." Rural Sociology 49(4): 541–552.
Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
Mair, P. (2009). Representative versus Responsible Government. MPIfG Working Paper 09/8.
Pew Research Center (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public. June, 12.
Pew Research Center (2015). Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government. November, 23
Podziba, S. L. (2014). Civic fusion: Moving from certainty through not knowing to curiosity. Negotiation Journal, 30(3): 243-254.
Putnam, R. D. and Feldstein, L. (2004). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1): 68-92.
Schäfer, A. (2015). Demokratie? Mehr oder weniger, in Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, 9.11.2015.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic books.
W. David Pierce and Carl D. Cheney, Behavior Analysis and Learning 3rd ED

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 Beck, Ulrich (2016-04-18). The metamorphosis of the world. Cambridge. ISBN 9780745690216. OCLC 921994898.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Sitaraman, Ganesh (2018-03-17). "The three crises of liberal democracy | Ganesh Sitaraman". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-04-23.

[1]

[2]